Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 815
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18210 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

815 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-02 10:32:54 AM  
goddammit motherfarker
 
2014-04-02 10:35:51 AM  
We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?
 
2014-04-02 10:36:48 AM  
It's not even a planet anymore.
 
2014-04-02 10:42:03 AM  

James!: It's not even a planet anymore.


Good. Because I don't want to live on this one anymore.
 
2014-04-02 10:42:22 AM  
Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers
 
2014-04-02 10:44:07 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


I presume.  I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.
 
2014-04-02 10:44:48 AM  
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

 
2014-04-02 10:45:18 AM  
Looks like the Republicans wanted to make it absolutely legal that that they can be bought by the higher contributor.

/Never thought the Roberts SCOTUS would be so liberal on conservative dreams.
 
2014-04-02 10:45:28 AM  

zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'


Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?
 
2014-04-02 10:46:26 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Yup, along the usual lines.  Being able to replace one of the conservative leaning justices with a more progressive one would do more good for this country than pretty much anything else.
 
2014-04-02 10:47:22 AM  
Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.
 
2014-04-02 10:47:44 AM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:08 AM  
FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:19 AM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


Move to Amend.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:21 AM  

Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?



"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."
 
2014-04-02 10:48:44 AM  
And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.
 
2014-04-02 10:49:53 AM  

Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
 
2014-04-02 10:50:22 AM  

SphericalTime: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."


Do I have a First Amendment right to kick John Roberts in the groin whilst wearing a steel-toed boot?
 
2014-04-02 10:50:23 AM  
FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?
 
2014-04-02 10:50:48 AM  

BunkoSquad: And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.


It's because you aren't thinking big enough.  Steal a TV from Wal-Mart and you'll get thrown in the slammer.  Steal $100,000,000 from Medicare and you get elected as Governor of Florida.
 
2014-04-02 10:51:18 AM  
Speech is free, money is not
 
2014-04-02 10:52:28 AM  

zedster: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf


Yeah, it may be time to mercy nuke the country to death now.
 
2014-04-02 10:54:17 AM  
John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.
 
2014-04-02 10:55:16 AM  

Serious Black: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Move to Amend.


Ah.  I've signed up.  And I don't really ever do that.
 
2014-04-02 10:55:45 AM  
Oh, I get now.

The more money you have, the more speech you can afford.

/Just like justice, get it?
 
2014-04-02 10:57:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.


He could just be an idiot.
 
2014-04-02 10:58:15 AM  

Irving Maimway: FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?


Well, maybe the Ferenghi republic
 
2014-04-02 11:00:36 AM  

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 
2014-04-02 11:01:15 AM  

AirForceVet: Oh, I get now.

The more money you have, the more speech you can afford.

/Just like justice, get it?


Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.
 
2014-04-02 11:01:26 AM  
republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. one man, one vote doesn't work if you're the one percent.
 
2014-04-02 11:01:33 AM  
Everyone has free speech. The rich just have more of it and the ability to give to people in charge of regulating them.
 
2014-04-02 11:02:30 AM  
U$A Inc.?
 
2014-04-02 11:03:09 AM  

dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.


Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.
 
2014-04-02 11:05:32 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-02 11:05:56 AM  
This is disgusting:

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really?  I think that's exactly what it farking means.
 
2014-04-02 11:06:55 AM  
more money equals better than

check mate, libtardatron 40k
 
2014-04-02 11:12:15 AM  

Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.


Look, if money is one of the primary arbiters of whether one gets prison or freedom or some form of kindly understanding from the judicial system, why shouldn't it be the same for the electoral systems.

I look forward to a return to the days of our noble robber barons running the show. Maybe when it ends this time, we'll nationalize their shiat and take their fortunes to destroy all of those lingering plutocrat dynasties once and for all. In the end, I guess we get what we deserve.

People re-elect douchenozzles like Reagan, elect his VP and then elect the former VP's son. We get the SCOTUS we ask for. For shiat's sake, Reagan nominated farking Bork. We only narrowly dodged that shiat show and got the Alitos and Scalias and Thomas. farking Clarence Thomas. "OOH, there's NOT ENOUGH money."
 
2014-04-02 11:14:09 AM  
....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012
 
2014-04-02 11:14:48 AM  
That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.
 
2014-04-02 11:16:20 AM  
I am starting to feel that life sometimes just is not fair...

/starting
 
2014-04-02 11:16:44 AM  

James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.


if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all
 
2014-04-02 11:16:47 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Money changes everything
Money changes everything
We think we know what we're doin'
We don't pull the strings
It's all in the past now
Money changes everything
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
 
2014-04-02 11:17:40 AM  

James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.


It is rather amusing watching a congresscritter spit out a corporate dick to accuse the corporation of wrong-doing, though
 
2014-04-02 11:18:28 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

It is rather amusing watching a congresscritter spit out a corporate dick to accuse the corporation of wrong-doing, though


Well that was just wrong

/thread fail... sorry
 
2014-04-02 11:18:34 AM  

somedude210: ....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012


Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.
 
2014-04-02 11:20:19 AM  

Nabb1: Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.


if we could donate the same amount to every race, to both candidates (or all for those crazy third-party critters) then we'd have election reform
 
2014-04-02 11:21:25 AM  

somedude210: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all


Sure, they pay telemarketers to do push polling.  They pay for print, TV and radio adds.  They pay for bloggers to update their sucky blogs. They hire shiatty statisticians and half retarded pundits.  Security staff at rallies and expensive dinners.

They hire some of the worst people in the world by the bucket full!
 
2014-04-02 11:22:55 AM  
In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.
 
2014-04-02 11:27:25 AM  

somedude210: ....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012


It won't buy you the election, but it will buy you a chance at winning the election. To quote Robert Shrum, "You don't need the most money, but you do need enough."
 
2014-04-02 11:28:16 AM  

FlashHarry: In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.


That's a completely separate issue from individual campaign contributions, though. And, I will grant, a much more complex problem than straightforward campaign contributions.
 
2014-04-02 11:51:31 AM  
Excellent to see that they are stripping down the campaign contribution laws.  I spent my money well.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 11:54:11 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.


The entire bowl? Can't he just choke on Scalia's? His mouth is already there.
 
2014-04-02 11:56:20 AM  
So, who is next to retire on that court? Ginsberg? That won't help. :'(
 
2014-04-02 12:04:04 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

SphericalTime: I presume. I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.

TuteTibiImperes: Yup, along the usual lines


It's more of a 1-4-4 ruling, with Justice Thomas thinking the other conservatives are too faint-hearted.
 
2014-04-02 12:07:46 PM  

abb3w: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?
SphericalTime: I presume. I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.
TuteTibiImperes: Yup, along the usual lines

It's more of a 1-4-4 ruling, with Justice Thomas thinking the other conservatives are too faint-hearted.


Yeah, he seems to think that political corruption is a good thing, and that we should encourage it.

/Maybe that's just due to his wife's influence.
 
2014-04-02 12:08:50 PM  
Here are some facts to aid in the thread:

A bit of background

It is important, for understanding what happened here to look back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley the Supreme Court, in a fractured opinion (lots of overlapping concurrences, so no simple majority), struck down limitations on campaign donations except those targeting specifically "quid pro quo" bribery.

Buckley also reaffirmed the principle that contributing to a campaign is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment.  An important plurality holding was from a liberal alliance helmed by Brennan who stressed that  "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49.  The then conservatives generally dissented. (I put this in here generally as a note that conservative and liberal in jurisprudence generally means something very different from in politics. Generally.)

McCutcheon v. FEC

The law struck down here is not the limits on individual campaign contributions, but the limits on aggregate contributions.  Under the aggregate limits, Congress set a cap ($123,200/two year election cycle) on how much an entity may donate in an election season, no matter how many individuals they donated to.

The court just held under the holding of Buckley, that while the individual caps are justified based on legitimate fear that large money donations will veer into the territory of quid pro quo bribery, the aggregate caps cannot be so said to prevent "pay for play" style corruption.  The majority rejected the government's argument that an entity can normally donate $5,200 to a candidate, but if that $5,200 kicks that entity over the aggregate cap because that entity donated to multiple individuals/committees, it is now bribery.  As the government thus lacked a legitimate interest, the aggregate cap was an unconstitutional infringement of rights under the first amendment.
 
2014-04-02 12:10:01 PM  
LOL!

That's not even a planet anymore, duh!
 
2014-04-02 12:10:20 PM  
The only real difference this makes is that it simplifies the network of shell organizations the Kochs have to funnel the money through.
 
2014-04-02 12:10:21 PM  
(>ლ)
 
2014-04-02 12:10:27 PM  

Teiritzamna: Here are some facts to aid in the thread:

A bit of background

It is important, for understanding what happened here to look back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley the Supreme Court, in a fractured opinion (lots of overlapping concurrences, so no simple majority), struck down limitations on campaign donations except those targeting specifically "quid pro quo" bribery.

Buckley also reaffirmed the principle that contributing to a campaign is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment.  An important plurality holding was from a liberal alliance helmed by Brennan who stressed that  "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."  Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49.  The then conservatives generally dissented. (I put this in here generally as a note that conservative and liberal in jurisprudence generally means something very different from in politics. Generally.)

McCutcheon v. FEC

The law struck down here is not the limits on individual campaign contributions, but the limits on aggregate contributions.  Under the aggregate limits, Congress set a cap ($123,200/two year election cycle) on how much an entity may donate in an election season, no matter how many individuals they donated to.

The court just held under the holding of Buckley, that while the individual caps are justified based on legitimate fear that large money donations will veer into the territory of quid pro quo bribery, the aggregate caps cannot be so said to prevent "pay for play" style corruption.  The majority rejected the government's argument that an entity can normally donate $5,200 to a candidate, but if that $5,200 kicks that entity over the aggregate cap because that entity donated to multiple individuals/committees, it is now bribery.  As the government thus lacked a legitimate interest, the aggregate cap was an unconstitutional infringement of rights under the fir ...


And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.
 
2014-04-02 12:10:51 PM  
Thanks for nothing, useless assholes.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:10:58 PM  
A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.
 
2014-04-02 12:11:54 PM  
Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.
 
2014-04-02 12:11:57 PM  

Serious Black: And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.


Oh agreed - but under ~30 years of precedent, it is the only corruption that the government can legally point to to trump the First Amendment.
 
2014-04-02 12:12:06 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: BunkoSquad: And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.

It's because you aren't thinking big enough.  Steal a TV from Wal-Mart and you'll get thrown in the slammer.  Steal $100,000,000 from Medicare and you get elected as Governor of Florida.


Reminds me of a quote from "The Jungle"

"Into this wild-beast tangle these men had been born without their consent, they had taken part in it because they could not help it; that they were in jail was no disgrace to them, for the game had never been fair, the dice were loaded. They were swindlers and thieves of pennies and dimes, and they had been trapped and put out of the way by the swindlers and thieves of millions of dollars."
 
2014-04-02 12:12:09 PM  

what_now: Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.


Fark that. Put'em in 8-inch heels and mini-skirts like the whores they are.
 
2014-04-02 12:12:15 PM  
Time to lower the flag and stick a fork in it, as this country is done.
 
2014-04-02 12:12:36 PM  

naughtyrev: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.


Bingo.
 
2014-04-02 12:12:39 PM  
So reword it to receiving limits. Put the limits on what the candidates receive instead of the folks donating. Let the overflow go to the public coffers.
 
2014-04-02 12:12:42 PM  

zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'


Yeah, that's a good one, alright.
 
2014-04-02 12:12:55 PM  
Maybe we should all agree as a society to do diligent research into the candidates and their positions, and not let flashy TV commercials control our opinions.  Yeah, that sure would be swell.

/ A man can dream can't he?  A man can dream...
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:13:02 PM  

Misch: Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.


How can we equate political bribery to gay sex?  People would actually pay attention then...
 
2014-04-02 12:13:12 PM  
At least Rmoney didn't buy the president's seat.  Not saying it's not possible for someone a bit smarter to do it.
 
2014-04-02 12:13:22 PM  
Everybody loves buypartisanship.
 
2014-04-02 12:13:23 PM  
John Roberts, 2012: I have given you Obamacare...
John Roberts, 2014: ...if you can keep it.
 
2014-04-02 12:13:30 PM  
There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.
 
2014-04-02 12:13:48 PM  

d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.


It would lead to an all out war of rhetoric and probably violence.  There is very little agreement on what the role of government should be and even less trust in our leaders.   It would be a bad, bad thing.
 
2014-04-02 12:14:17 PM  
AND a kakistocracy.
 
2014-04-02 12:14:18 PM  
I'm glad I don't have children. Why would anyone want to bring life to be part of such a piece of shiat world?
 
2014-04-02 12:14:19 PM  
i.imgur.com

Well, it'll be the best government money can buy.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:14:40 PM  

FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.


Someone smarter than I need to figure out how we can have a constitutional convention without the asshole politicians being involved.
 
2014-04-02 12:14:43 PM  
You want an activist court? You got one right here.

Fark the Roberts Court.
 
2014-04-02 12:14:44 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.

Oh agreed - but under ~30 years of precedent, it is the only corruption that the government can legally point to to trump the First Amendment.


Just because something isn't the only thing SCOTUS can point to as a trump card doesn't mean they can't create it themselves. Look at NAMUDNO v. Holder and Shelby County v. Holder. Roberts himself created the trump card he played four years later to say the preclearance formula was unconstitutional. Why couldn't they declare combating another form of corruption to be a compelling government interest?
 
2014-04-02 12:14:47 PM  
Well, thanks a lot, USSC.  As if television wasn't already ridiculously inundated with political ads...
 
2014-04-02 12:15:20 PM  
Bloomberg gets to lobby everyone to ban soda!!! YAY!
 
2014-04-02 12:15:21 PM  
Makes me sick.  Not as sick as Citizens United, but damn close.
 
2014-04-02 12:15:23 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


We just need one, Nino maybe, to keel over, and sanity can be restored.  But you KNOW from 2014 on ward the Senate GOP will Desperately try to run out the clock on any Obama supreme court nominees
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:15:28 PM  

theorellior: You want an activist court? You got one right here.

Fark the Roberts Court.


It's not activism if they do something you like.
 
2014-04-02 12:15:29 PM  

d23: money isn't speech.


Of course it isn't, any more than pomegranates aren't game consoles.  And the distinction is just as irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Court has long held that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that expressive conduct.

If you believe that the first amendment only covers the expressive conduct made by your body alone (speech, sign language, farting in Morse code, etc.) then cool, carry on.  But if you, like the framers, believed that protected expressive conduct also includes making signs, paying someone to print broadsheets, and the like, than you agree with the Court on that point.
 
2014-04-02 12:15:33 PM  

Teiritzamna: Here are some facts to aid in the thread:

A bit of background

It is important, for understanding what happened here to look back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley the Supreme Court, in a fractured opinion (lots of overlapping concurrences, so no simple majority), struck down limitations on campaign donations except those targeting specifically "quid pro quo" bribery.

Buckley also reaffirmed the principle that contributing to a campaign is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment.  An important plurality holding was from a liberal alliance helmed by Brennan who stressed that  "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."  Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49.  The then conservatives generally dissented. (I put this in here generally as a note that conservative and liberal in jurisprudence generally means something very different from in politics. Generally.)

McCutcheon v. FEC

The law struck down here is not the limits on individual campaign contributions, but the limits on aggregate contributions.  Under the aggregate limits, Congress set a cap ($123,200/two year election cycle) on how much an entity may donate in an election season, no matter how many individuals they donated to.

The court just held under the holding of Buckley, that while the individual caps are justified based on legitimate fear that large money donations will veer into the territory of quid pro quo bribery, the aggregate caps cannot be so said to prevent "pay for play" style corruption.  The majority rejected the government's argument that an entity can normally donate $5,200 to a candidate, but if that $5,200 kicks that entity over the aggregate cap because that entity donated to multiple individuals/committees, it is now bribery.  As the government thus lacked a legitimate interest, the aggregate cap was an unconstitutional infringement of rights under the fir ...


For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.
 
2014-04-02 12:16:06 PM  
anamericaninrome.com
 
2014-04-02 12:16:11 PM  
I wish I could say that this decision was surprising. At all.

But it's not.
 
2014-04-02 12:16:16 PM  

d23: FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.

Someone smarter than I need to figure out how we can have a constitutional convention without the asshole politicians being involved.


Dare to dream! :(
 
2014-04-02 12:16:17 PM  
A republic cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until its wealthier members discover it is cheaper to bribe the representatives into exempting them from contributing than to contribute to the public treasury. After that, the wealthy always purchase the candidate promising the least contribution, with the result the republic collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by rule by the violent and anarchic mob, then a dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler RAND PAUL
 
2014-04-02 12:16:24 PM  
Hear that sound?

That's the sound of 535 people instantly and simultaneously achieving sexual release.  Cleanup in the aisle please!
 
2014-04-02 12:16:37 PM  

qorkfiend: For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.


As far as i know, that will be the case now.
 
2014-04-02 12:16:42 PM  

SphericalTime: This is disgusting:

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really?  I think that's exactly what it farking means.


THIS.  Roberts just made bribery legal AND tax deductible.
 
2014-04-02 12:16:55 PM  

zedster: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf


The difference is that flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades do not cause actual harm to people. They are offensive, but not actually harmful. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is actually harmful, and therefore regulated.

Abuse of authority through corruption is without a doubt harmful to other people, and is therefore subject to regulation.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:17:01 PM  

AcademGreen: It would lead to an all out war of rhetoric and probably violence. There is very little agreement on what the role of government should be and even less trust in our leaders. It would be a bad, bad thing.


If we don't steer the U.S. away from being a corporate fiefdom we're going to have war and violence anyway.  A small minority oppressing a huge majority doesn't usually last all that long.
 
2014-04-02 12:17:04 PM  
This is what Jesus would want.
 
2014-04-02 12:17:21 PM  
Remember, this is a God fearing nation and if you have lots of money, it means God loves you and he smiles on everything you do.

Funny how they keep pretending Molech is Jehovah for the peasants though.
 
2014-04-02 12:17:33 PM  
Suck it, libs!

/had to be said
 
2014-04-02 12:17:57 PM  
i290.photobucket.com

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we will be lucky to live through it.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:04 PM  

Teiritzamna: Here are some facts to aid in the thread:


This was really great. Thanks. The decision stinks on ice, but at least now I understand it.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:21 PM  

Teiritzamna: What is relevant is that Court has long held that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that expressive conduct.


This is what's lost on everyone.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:29 PM  
wait till it backfires like Citizens United and the Democratics take the House due to this ruling
 
2014-04-02 12:18:41 PM  
This is SO not good.

This next election cycle is going to be clown shoes.
 
2014-04-02 12:18:48 PM  
So the solution to super PACs having too much spending power is to give more spending power to everyone else?

I guess that's... something?
 
2014-04-02 12:18:52 PM  
This might be a good time to start up that political ad company I've been thinking of.  With this ruling will come a huge amount of money from the wealthy, and that money has to go somewhere.

I kept thinking of This American Life where they covered the "Giant Pool of Money".  Maybe they should do one called the "Giant Pool of Political Money".
 
2014-04-02 12:19:03 PM  
Maybe this will circulate more wealthy peoples money into the actual economy.

These congressman will have to pay their handlers and local tv stations.

I dunno, bright side looker I guess
 
2014-04-02 12:19:04 PM  
Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.  Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:08 PM  

pippi longstocking: I'm glad I don't have children. Why would anyone want to bring life to be part of such a piece of shiat world?


The world has been sh*tty since Thrag dragged Thora back to the cave and made Ugg. But we keep going.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:14 PM  

FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.


Retired justice John Paul Stevens has proposed six amendments.

3. Campaign Finance - Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:27 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: wait till it backfires like Citizens United and the Democratics take the House due to this ruling


I see what you did there.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:30 PM  

Serious Black: Just because something isn't the only thing SCOTUS can point to as a trump card doesn't mean they can't create it themselves. Look at NAMUDNO v. Holder and Shelby County v. Holder. Roberts himself created the trump card he played four years later to say the preclearance formula was unconstitutional. Why couldn't they declare combating another form of corruption to be a compelling government interest?


1) The Court generally cannot/will not make up a rationale under Strict Scrutiny.  They can do it in Rational Basis review, but the whole point of strict scrutiny is that the government will almost always lose.

2) Unfortunately, its much harder to craft a new rationale reducing first amendment protections in the face of long precedent holding that curbing quid pro quo bribery is the only compelling interest the government has in reducing donations.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:32 PM  
This is why who the president is matters, really. They appoint these lifers on the Court. I'd like to think that at some point SCOTUS was a group of people who actually cared about the US and took hard stands to protect our freedom because it's pretty plain to see it's a bunch of idiots being persuaded by big money like every other branch of government. Thanks Alito, Roberts, and the evil Scalia-Thomas monster.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:35 PM  

Nabb1: That's a completely separate issue from individual campaign contributions, though. And, I will grant, a much more complex problem than straightforward campaign contributions.


true - i was just illustrating that this is what happens when unlimited super pac donations were allowed. now unlimited direct donations means that sheldon adelson can now give $90 million to a candidate directly instead of to his super pac.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:44 PM  

qorkfiend: For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.


That's precisely correct. That adds up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.6 million dollars if you gave the maximum to every candidate in every race for both the primary and the general election. Also, remember that candidates can pretty much transfer money from their own campaign to another candidate's campaign for free, so that really hinders the individual contribution limit's effectiveness.
 
2014-04-02 12:19:55 PM  

qorkfiend: For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.


Well, there's a finite number of candidates for elected federal office, which does create a trivial upper bound.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:00 PM  
Spending money is freedom of speech. More money = more freedom. If you hate this, you hate America, citizen. Having no money will means you are an enemy of the state. You will be placed under the custody of Carl's Jr.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:20:02 PM  

orezona: This is SO not good.

This next election cycle is going to be clown shoes.


The excessive derp and the tortured logic of the last presidential cycle was like fingernails on a chalk board.  The next round will be like Chinese water torture.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:25 PM  

Serious Black: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Move to Amend.


THANK YOU!
 
2014-04-02 12:20:28 PM  
How long 'til the Republican Party breaks up into two groups: the Adelson Party, and the Koch Party?
 
2014-04-02 12:20:43 PM  

zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'


The purpose of the regulation of campaign contributions is not to protect against corruption.

The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Without this, one man - one vote is meaningless.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:44 PM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


The ACLU actually supported Citizen's United and probably supports this too.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:45 PM  
Maybe this is how the trickling down starts?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:20:46 PM  

JolobinSmokin: Maybe this will circulate more wealthy peoples money into the actual economy.

These congressman will have to pay their handlers and local tv stations.

I dunno, bright side looker I guess


It would be fine if the populace as able to reason in greater than 30 second increments.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:51 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: I wish I could say that this decision was surprising. At all.

But it's not.


Yep. The five conservatives will side with power and money every time.
 
2014-04-02 12:20:57 PM  
I hate to say it, but I think this might've been a good ruling.

The previous law capped the amount that an individual could donate to individual candidates, and the total amount he could donate to elections.  The rulilng basically eliminated the cap on total election contributions, but left intact the individual campaign caps.  In other words, David Koch still can't give Eric Cantor more than $5600, but he can give every Republican candidate $5600.  That makes a sort of perverse sense to me, in that the previous way basically had an arbitrary limit on the number of people a person could contribute to.

Now, if it were up to me, I'd turn the campaign finance laws around:  you want donations to be speech?  Great, they are.  You can donate as much as you want to whomever you want.  However, individual candidates are severely limited in the amount of money they can accept, both from individuals and groups.  And THAT said, if I could get it through, I'd have a Constitutional amendment specifying that for purposes of soft money, campaign contributions are not speech, and therefore soft money donations also are subject to whatever limiations Congress enacts.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:16 PM  
 
2014-04-02 12:21:19 PM  
media.desura.com
 
2014-04-02 12:21:22 PM  
Don't worry! Your individual vote will take care of all the problems.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:27 PM  

Misch: Retired justice John Paul Stevens has proposed six amendments.


The fact that he has an amendment getting rid of the anti-commandeering doctrine means that no one serious will pay any attention to that list i am afraid.  I fear carve outs to the First Amendment generally, but jesus, allowing the federal government to command the states to enforce federal law is pants on head stupid (and if you like legalized pot in many states, you would agree)
 
2014-04-02 12:21:46 PM  

ox45tallboy: Abuse of authority through corruption is without a doubt harmful to other people, and is therefore subject to regulation.


Should be.  Should be, but isn't.  Not now.  Not in this place.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:47 PM  
Even though this is dooming us to a corporatocracy, which by the way is also killing small business and entrepreneurism, I will nonetheless join the moveon.org protest at San Francisco city hall tonight at 5pm.
 
2014-04-02 12:21:52 PM  

somedude210: (or all for those crazy third-party critters)


Crazy third parties?
Like the Nazi party?
remember when they were our enemy?

How long until there is an American Al Quaeda party?
American Taliban party?
 
2014-04-02 12:22:00 PM  

d23: FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.

Someone smarter than I need to figure out how we can have a constitutional convention without the asshole politicians being involved.


Seems to me that if the sheeple weren't asleep at the wheel and paid attention to the Constitution to begin with (not to mention the Declaration of Independence), said politicians wouldn't even be in office to begin with.

The Constitution doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be followed.  Do NOT believe the hype that we need a con-con.  That would be a complete and total disaster for this country.

I think what needs to be done--and yeah, I know, it's a pipe dream--everyone who's registered to vote should vote for anyone EXCEPT Republicans and Democrats.  Write someone's name in if you want, so long as the person meets the qualifications for the office in question.  The objective here is to get the current crop of Congress critters out of office.  (Say that rapidly a few times.)

Third-party candidates have to jump through hoops to even get on the ballot, and where in the Constitution does it say you have to jump through those hoops?  It doesn't!

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The same bunch keeps getting voted in, and people wonder why nothing's changing.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:22:09 PM  

kpaxoid: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

The purpose of the regulation of campaign contributions is not to protect against corruption.

The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Without this, one man - one vote is meaningless.


It already is.  When you equate speech and money then that goes out the window.

And, yes, the Founding Fathers were rich land owners, but they were scared shiatless that someone with MORE money would come in and tell them what to do.  They didn't want legislative power based on what you can pay.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:17 PM  

what_now: Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.


Not a new Idea but perhaps overdue.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:22 PM  

No Such Agency: Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.   Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.


They already have. Reynolds v. Sims. One man, one vote. Everyone's voice is equal in the political realm.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:35 PM  
So if giving money is "speech" then why isn't giving bribes also "free speech"?

This is stupid. No one is saying people can't spend unlimited money on ads and print on their own, they are just limiting MONEY you can give to others. That's not free speech. giving money is not "Free speech".
 
2014-04-02 12:22:42 PM  

zedster: Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).


Yeah except the first amendment examples are relatively harmless. They're the lunatic fringe that most rational people just ignore for the most part.
 
2014-04-02 12:22:58 PM  

vudukungfu: How long until there is an American Al Quaeda party?American Taliban party?


What? You mean one full of religious fundamentalists who want America's government destroyed?


I'm pretty sure that already exists.
 
2014-04-02 12:23:03 PM  
The only advice I can offer those cheering this decision is to be careful what you ask for, because sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to hold a nearly unassailable demographic majority, and then they will, as sure as the sun rises, use this decision to permanently bury the GOP. Karma's a biatch, baby.
 
2014-04-02 12:23:06 PM  
So say I won the lottery and decided I wanted to donate $3.5m or whatever the number is to the whole of Congress. Is there any mechanism in place/checks being done that would ensure that each individual Congress Critter got his or her $5200? Or is this just going to make creating huge party slush funds that much easier?
 
2014-04-02 12:23:18 PM  
So are contributions from foreign entities still outlawed?

If so, why? After all. Even non-citizens are protected by the First Ammendment, we can't just throw someone here on a visa in Jail for saying something we don't like just because they're not a US citizen...
 
2014-04-02 12:23:35 PM  
Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't really change things for the worse (doesn't make them better either). It seems that now donations can go to the campaigns instead of the superpacs and we can do away with the sham of pretending that the pacs weren't coordinating with the campaigns. We just cut out the superpac middleman, which i didn't care for so much in the first place.

I may be contradicting myself a little bit here... but maybe this is a tad better. With the superpacs, the candidates could pretend that they didn't endorse the messages of some ads because "they weren't coordinating". If the $$$ goes to the campaign, at least they'd have to stand by what the ads say. But I'm sure the parties are already figuring out the right balance between superpac donations and direct campaign contributions to negate this silver lining i thought I had found.
 
2014-04-02 12:23:38 PM  

kpaxoid: The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.


Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

"[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (J. Brennan).
 
2014-04-02 12:24:46 PM  

Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


Well sure, it sounds silly when you say it out loud.
 
2014-04-02 12:24:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: zedster: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

The difference is that flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades do not cause actual harm to people. They are offensive, but not actually harmful. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is actually harmful, and therefore regulated.

Abuse of authority through corruption is without a doubt harmful to other people, and is therefore subject to regulation.


Of course flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades cause actual harm.  Raised to a certain level, offense can be harmful.  However, our society tends to agree that such offence is worth it in order to protect our First Amendment rights.

The problem with the Justice's analogy is that anyone can burn a flag, join a funeral protest etc., but only a certain class of people can make serious donations to political candidates.

/The analogy is even worse when it comes to Citizens United, since ever fewer people can afford to saturate the TV market with ads making the most outlandishly false claims about Taftcare
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:25:01 PM  

Serious Black: No Such Agency: Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.   Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.

They already have. Reynolds v. Sims. One man, one vote. Everyone's voice is equal in the political realm.


No.. not literal one man one vote, but in terms of influence.  Right now a Koch can come in and buy votes from every constituency in the country.  If that doesn't violate the spirit of one man one vote I don't know what does.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:28 PM  
If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:37 PM  

Mugato: zedster: Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

Yeah except the first amendment examples are relatively harmless. They're the lunatic fringe that most rational people just ignore for the most part.


FTFA: The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:43 PM  

Miss Alexandra: I think what needs to be done--and yeah, I know, it's a pipe dream--everyone who's registered to vote should vote for anyone EXCEPT Republicans and Democrats.  Write someone's name in if you want, so long as the person meets the qualifications for the office in question.  The objective here is to get the current crop of Congress critters out of office.  (Say that rapidly a few times.)


Why are we lumping all current members of Congress into the same boat, regardless of their actual positions and actions, and why are we assuming that their replacements will be superior in any way? Without changing the underlying incentives, Congress would attract the exact same kinds of people as it currently does.
 
2014-04-02 12:25:47 PM  
Can we start a fund to bribe the SCOTUS and Congress? Apparently, bribery is the only way to get justice anymore.

I figure 541 members of Congress plus 9 members of the SCOTUS...550 times...let's see, they're all worth about $1 on a good day...so $550 should buy me some representation in Washington DC.

So where do I send my check?
 
2014-04-02 12:26:05 PM  

Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.


Forget it, man. No one is listening.
 
2014-04-02 12:26:51 PM  
I understand this seems like a win for the Republicans in the short run, but isn't the trend that the Dems are actually benefitting more from these laws as wealthy donors move to support Democrats?

Perhaps this will come to bite the Repubs in the back end as more of the rich realize they are better off with Dems in office.
 
2014-04-02 12:27:25 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-02 12:27:44 PM  
The Supreme Court has effectively struck down democracy. Perhaps it's time to strike down the SC?
 
2014-04-02 12:27:47 PM  

Kevin72: If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.


www.trunews.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:27:50 PM  

Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

"[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (J. Brennan).


I don't think that means that you should allow the rich to buy theoretical bullhorns to drown out everyone else's voice, however.  Big money lobbying came of age in 1980, and I don't think any founding father or politician before that date had any inkling that money would band together in such a way that a single constituent no longer mattered AT ALL.
 
2014-04-02 12:27:51 PM  
A plutocracy?  That's goofy!
 
2014-04-02 12:28:18 PM  
de·moc·ra·cy
/diˈmäkrəsē/
noun: democracy
    1.  a system of government by the affluent population or all the eligible corporate entities of a state, typically through purchased representatives.
 
2014-04-02 12:28:23 PM  

Teiritzamna: kpaxoid: The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

"[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (J. Brennan).


Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.
 
2014-04-02 12:28:33 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?
 
2014-04-02 12:28:33 PM  

chapman: Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:


The second half:

scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-04-02 12:29:43 PM  

25.media.tumblr.com


"Git me! I'm giving out free speech!"



/out you five pixies go--through the door or out the window
 
2014-04-02 12:29:53 PM  

SphericalTime: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

I presume.  I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.


FTA:
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

I see 5.
 
2014-04-02 12:29:54 PM  
Oh FFS.  I'm not actually surprised, but I am saddened.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:30:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

Forget it, man. No one is listening.


No dude, we get that spending money in pursuance of free speech is part of that free speech.  But it is insane to claim that there is some kind of equivalence between the $1,000 I could spend to express my free speech and the $50,000,000 that one of the Koch brothers could spend to express his free speech.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:30:09 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


Teamsters union and teachers union in the top 20???  Wow... I don't know what to say to that.  That's some good book cookin'.
 
2014-04-02 12:30:19 PM  
Oh, good.  The US is going to turn into even more of a third world banana republic.  F**k you, SCOTUS.
 
2014-04-02 12:30:30 PM  
SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...
 
2014-04-02 12:30:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?


It's a list of all donors since 1989.  I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.
 
2014-04-02 12:30:47 PM  

d23: I don't think that means that you should allow the rich to buy theoretical bullhorns to drown out everyone else's voice, however. Big money lobbying came of age in 1980, and I don't think any founding father or politician before that date had any inkling that money would band together in such a way that a single constituent no longer mattered AT ALL.


Fair enough - except that that was the rationale specifically rejected in Buckley.  I personally agree that the court got it wrong when it indicated that quid pro quo donations are the only type of corruption that can be prevented under the first amendment, but its hard to argue that Buckley wasn't rejecting laws trying to prevent inequality in campaign donations when that is exactly and expressly what it rejected.
 
2014-04-02 12:31:08 PM  
And yet people laugh at Occupy for being pissed off about the politic system.
 
2014-04-02 12:31:16 PM  
Miss Alexandra:  sheeple

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:31:18 PM  

Irving Maimway: FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?


There really isn't. I'm sure people will claim I'm being hyperbolic, but Citizens United and this ruling (along with Patriot Act and it's horrible effects) have effectively destroyed America. It might take another decade or so, but America is gone.
 
2014-04-02 12:31:19 PM  
What a farking joke.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:03 PM  

Serious Black: Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.


Oh sure - I am just saying if the lion of supreme court liberalism was on the side of Roberts and Thomas, its gonna be an uphill slog to do so.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:09 PM  
The Ford Focus Doritos Loco Tacos Microsoft Office Presidential Election 2016 - brought to you by Halliburton
 
2014-04-02 12:32:17 PM  

Serious Black: Teiritzamna: kpaxoid: The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

"[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (J. Brennan).

Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.


Here is hoping:  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 
2014-04-02 12:32:31 PM  

chapman: Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:


It's almost... ALMOST like you don't understand reporting laws.

ALMOST. I'm betting you do know about unreported political funding, but hope no one calls you on it.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:48 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


Whar are LLCs? Whar?

The money you listed above isn't dark money. Dark money from LLCs that conceal who donated how much is what is buying and selling every election at every level of government now. Thanks to Citizens United and cases like today's.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:56 PM  
Let's see... Now liberals hate the First, Second, Fourth , Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendments. Spreadsheet updated.
 
2014-04-02 12:32:59 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...


The only way to win is not to play.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:01 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:


That's why we need full disclosure of contributions.

Thanks Citizens United.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:01 PM  

AirForceVet: Oh, I get now.

The more money you have, the more speech you can afford.

/Just like justice, get it?


Ayup.

I mean, our whole system... ALL OF IT... is based on the idea that money talks.

Want to win a court case?  You'd better hope you can afford an expensive lawyer.

Want to get a law passed?  Better have some lobbyists.

Want to become a "representative of the people?"  Better build a large war chest.

Money is power.  Why is this shocking in any way?
 
2014-04-02 12:33:39 PM  

chapman: qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?

It's a list of all donors since 1989.  I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.


How about recently, like the past 5 years?
 
2014-04-02 12:33:40 PM  
Well, since this is what it's coming to, I'll sell my vote for $10 million dollars.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:44 PM  
Sigh.
 
2014-04-02 12:33:52 PM  
Absolutely disgusting... But not surprising. We've been a Plutocracy with a thin façade of Democracy for a long time now.
 
2014-04-02 12:34:50 PM  

keylock71: Absolutely disgusting... But not surprising. We've been a Plutocracy with a thin façade of Democracy for a long time now.


Yes... Since around 1776.
 
2014-04-02 12:35:44 PM  
Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat
 
2014-04-02 12:35:49 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Apparently, bribery is the only way to get justice anymore.


Did you know that lobbying is illegal in India?   Because it is seen as bribery.  Because, well, it is.

Here is is a core part of our political process.

What does that say?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:36:09 PM  

R.A.Danny: Let's see... Now liberals hate the First, Second, Fourth , Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendments. Spreadsheet updated.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:36:10 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: MaudlinMutantMollusk: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

It is rather amusing watching a congresscritter spit out a corporate dick to accuse the corporation of wrong-doing, though

Well that was just wrong


Nope.
i.qkme.me
 
2014-04-02 12:36:25 PM  

chapman: The second half:


Weird. Sheldon Adelson isn't on that list at ALL, yet he has confirmed donating nearly 90 MILLION just in one year

And you are claiming the Kochs haven't donated even 30 million?

Like I said, you seem to be counting on people being idiots, like you...
 
2014-04-02 12:36:29 PM  

qorkfiend: chapman: qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?

It's a list of all donors since 1989.  I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.


How about recently, like the past 5 years?


Source is open secrets.  Not sure if they did a five year lookup.
 
2014-04-02 12:36:33 PM  

EyeballKid: How long 'til the Republican Party breaks up into two groups: the Adelson Party, and the Koch Party?


Sometime around the 2000 election.
 
2014-04-02 12:36:47 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: But it is insane to claim that there is some kind of equivalence between the $1,000 I could spend to express my free speech and the $50,000,000 that George Soros

  could spend to express his free speech.


So it's more of an "it's not faaaaaaaaaaair" argument.
.
 
2014-04-02 12:36:48 PM  
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-04-02 12:36:50 PM  
The court has ruled, in its infinite wisdom, that the rich and poor alike are free to donate 3.6 million to political candidates.
 
2014-04-02 12:37:16 PM  
Should be noted:

The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.

You still can't contribute more than $2600 directly to a single candidate, this just means that you can give $2600 to as many separate candidates as you want. Still not cool, but not quite the "buy a politician" line people are acting like.
 
2014-04-02 12:37:21 PM  

keylock71: Absolutely disgusting... But not surprising. We've been a Plutocracy with a thin façade of Democracy for a long time now.


That's why the "Founders" set up a republic.  Most of them hated democracy, hated the demos.  But of course we venerate them like ancient lawgivers, so we can't talk about that.
 
2014-04-02 12:37:31 PM  
Biggest spenders in the country? Teacher's unions. Support Democrats. Why no outrage there, libs?

FL recent election? Dems outspent the pub by what, 5 times over? Why no outrage there?

Hippiecrits, all it is.
 
2014-04-02 12:37:47 PM  

SilentStrider: And yet people laugh at Occupy for being pissed off about the politic system.


Just the idiots and partisans.  Everyone else seems to have a basic understanding that only movement politics is capable of producing systemic change in this country.
 
2014-04-02 12:38:11 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

Forget it, man. No one is listening.

No dude, we get that spending money in pursuance of free speech is part of that free speech.  But it is insane to claim that there is some kind of equivalence between the $1,000 I could spend to express my free speech and the $50,000,000 that one of the Koch brothers could spend to express his free speech.


Is there a constitutional requirement for speech to be equal?  I hate the way this stuff is going too, and wish we could address it in an amendment, but logically I'm not sure they are wrong here.  As far is if this is a result that will help or hurt most people, I think that is rather clear, but the court isn't really supposed to judge based on anticipated results.
 
2014-04-02 12:38:20 PM  

qorkfiend: Miss Alexandra: I think what needs to be done--and yeah, I know, it's a pipe dream--everyone who's registered to vote should vote for anyone EXCEPT Republicans and Democrats.  Write someone's name in if you want, so long as the person meets the qualifications for the office in question.  The objective here is to get the current crop of Congress critters out of office.  (Say that rapidly a few times.)

Why are we lumping all current members of Congress into the same boat, regardless of their actual positions and actions, and why are we assuming that their replacements will be superior in any way? Without changing the underlying incentives, Congress would attract the exact same kinds of people as it currently does.


You have a point there.

Thing is our current representatives in general do not represent We the People.  You have Congress critters who tell you what their stand is on a given issue, but their voting record says the opposite.  It's not so much what they say but what they do (or how they vote).

It would be nice if we could get a new batch in, so to speak--and this time hold their feet to the fire.  You don't do the will of your constituents?  You're outta here!  And people need to educate themselves instead of being so blasted apathetic.

Part of the problem does lie with We the People.  We need to be more vigilant.  "Hey, Congressman So-and-So...you said your position was this, why are you voting the complete opposite?"  And we need to go back to paper ballots--and voters can watch the ballots being counted.  I for one do not trust those electronic ballots.  There's a saying, it's not the votes that count, but he who counts the votes.

As it stands, we have a Republican/Democrat duopoly.  And with not a dime's worth of difference between them, at least not at the national level, and probably not at the state level.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:38:32 PM  

Mikey1969: Should be noted:

The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.

You still can't contribute more than $2600 directly to a single candidate, this just means that you can give $2600 to as many separate candidates as you want. Still not cool, but not quite the "buy a politician" line people are acting like.


If you can't see why donating $2600 to several hundred candidates isn't a problem I don't know what to tell you.

Again, why should one be allowed to donate to candidates one can't vote for?
 
2014-04-02 12:38:42 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 12:40:06 PM  
How is this a step in the right direction? Bunch of savage farking baboons.
 
2014-04-02 12:40:24 PM  
Meh, bribery is for the little people.  Once you get into the millions it counts as free speech.
 
2014-04-02 12:40:26 PM  

Stile4aly: The court has ruled, in its infinite wisdom, that the rich and poor alike are free to donate 3.6 million to political candidates.


Hmm.

It costs X to buy power.  You can pool resources, or pay for it yourself.

So, really, it's basically giving large numbers of poor people the same amount of political power as a small number of rich people.

That sounds a lot like House of Lords and the House of Commons, or how our Congress and Senate were conceived.
 
2014-04-02 12:40:40 PM  
Awforchrissakes! Revolution is just around the corner. Heads on pikes. Bodies in the bay. It's coming, baby.
 
2014-04-02 12:40:46 PM  
Coconut Approved Solution

Campaigning for president/congress can start a maximum of 18 months prior to the election date.  The government allots 1 billion dollars to a presidential campaign, 5 million for a senate campaign, and 1 million for a representative campaign.  At the start of each month, the government distributes 1/18th of the fund * their percent of likely voters to each candidate.

For example:  Obama is polling at 45% of likely voters, Romney is polling at 43%, Gary Johnson at 5%, Jill Stein at 3%.  Obama would get 25 million to spend that month, Romney would get about 24 million, Gary about 2.7 million, and Jill about 1.8 million.  The remaining money is distributed evenly, and hell, everyone on the ballot gets an extra five million too.

No additional money may be spent on the campaign, and every campaign advertisement must be accounted for.  Prohibit third party attack ads.

Constitutionally, I agree with the SCOTUS, but we do need to fix it.  We need an amendment.
 
2014-04-02 12:40:54 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Fortunately, if SCOTUS issues a wrong opinion, they can change their mind later and overturn that opinion in a later case.

Oh sure - I am just saying if the lion of supreme court liberalism was on the side of Roberts and Thomas, its gonna be an uphill slog to do so.


Except that same liberal justice would have laughed at the reasoning of Citizen's United and would never have considered the idea of corporations having a free speech right. Accordingly, he may just have changed his ruling with that consideration (unlike our current idiot brigade).
 
2014-04-02 12:41:12 PM  
I'm not quite sure what the conservative position on this is.

1) Rich people ought to have more of an influence on politics than poor people.

2) All people should have an equal influence on politics, but the price to make that happen is too high.

3) People actually do have an equal influence on politics, and these restrictions are therefore unnecessary.

It's supposed to be #2, right?
 
2014-04-02 12:41:14 PM  
So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.
 
2014-04-02 12:41:34 PM  

Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat


That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:41:54 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not quite sure what the conservative position on this is.

1) Rich people ought to have more of an influence on politics than poor people.

2) All people should have an equal influence on politics, but the price to make that happen is too high.

3) People actually do have an equal influence on politics, and these restrictions are therefore unnecessary.

It's supposed to be #2, right?


The current GOP position is #1, but make it look like #2.
 
2014-04-02 12:42:40 PM  

SphericalTime: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

I presume.  I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.


Thomas concurred with some inane Thomas theory about property rights.
 
2014-04-02 12:42:51 PM  

Latinwolf: SphericalTime: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

I presume.  I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.

FTA:
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

I see 5.


I was reading the summary of the opinion, which divides it up into 3 different sections, with Thomas listed separately.  Yes, overall, it has to have been 5.
 
2014-04-02 12:42:53 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.


No, he said that First Amendment concerns override safeguards against corruption in politics. You can't stop Sheldon Adelson maxing out contributions to two thirds of Congress right before they vote on gambling regulations, but hey: if you can prove quid pro quo beyond a reasonable doubt you can convict them of corruption.

I absolutely disagree with the ruling and think it's ridiculous, but Roberts does concede that money does corrupt politics. He just argues that there is nothing you can do to prevent such influence beyond contribution caps on individual races (and Clarence Thomas claims even those are unconstitutional.)
 
2014-04-02 12:42:54 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

Forget it, man. No one is listening.

No dude, we get that spending money in pursuance of free speech is part of that free speech.  But it is insane to claim that there is some kind of equivalence between the $1,000 I could spend to express my free speech and the $50,000,000 that one of the Koch brothers could spend to express his free speech.


In this particular instance, the Koch brothers couldn't spend that much on contributions to individual candidates and the party national committees if they wanted to. This was purely about the aggregate limit to individual candidates. PAC money is a whole different issue than what was before the Court. If some rich guy wants to contribute the individual maximum to a candidate for every seat in the House, Senate (well, one third, since those are all that are up in any two year cycle) and President (every other go around), that's not going to add up to $50 million for the two of them.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:43:02 PM  

JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.


I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.
 
2014-04-02 12:43:08 PM  

NickelP: Is there a constitutional requirement for speech to be equal?


Ooooh.

No.  It doesn't say that.  It doesn't say that everyone has an equal right to be heard.

Only that congress can't make laws that abridge speech.

And limiting campaign contributions can be seen as doing just that, I guess.
 
Jha
2014-04-02 12:43:11 PM  
Putting a limit on campaign contributions is anti-freedom.

So many freedom haters on Fark, which is the status-quo.
 
2014-04-02 12:43:47 PM  

MattStafford: At the start of each month, the government distributes 1/18th of the fund * their percent of likely voters to each candidate.


Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?
 
2014-04-02 12:43:50 PM  
So about ridding ourselves of "campaign contributions" (aka bribery) altogether in favor of publicly funded elections...
 
2014-04-02 12:43:55 PM  
When Leona Helmsley said "We don't pay taxes, only the little people pay taxes." in the 80s, she was immediately taken down. If she said this today, she'd get a standing ovation at CPAC.
 
2014-04-02 12:44:13 PM  
Revolution: Part 2
 
2014-04-02 12:44:15 PM  
Still think there's no difference who's elected president? President's from what party appointed the justices voted for this? Justices from which party voted against this?
 
2014-04-02 12:44:30 PM  

d23: JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.

I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.


Money is a tool. Using it to be heard is protected.
 
2014-04-02 12:45:19 PM  

bglove25: Except that same liberal justice would have laughed at the reasoning of Citizen's United and would never have considered the idea of corporations having a free speech right. Accordingly, he may just have changed his ruling with that consideration (unlike our current idiot brigade).


I am honestly not sure about Brennan's reaction to CU, as his position was almost always the expansion of rights and CU is heavily based on Buckley as well. 

As to McCutcheon, I am glad Breyer actually got his shiat together for this dissent, it is a corker:

"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary "chain of communication" between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point." Slip Op. at 57 (J. Breyer, Dissent)
 
2014-04-02 12:45:26 PM  
You know, I had a whole rant ready, and upon reflection, there really is only one response: this is just pants on head rucking fetarded...
 
2014-04-02 12:45:41 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


The list now covers 1989 through 2014.  It appears you didn't bother to read or comprehend the disclaimer and explanation from the Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets about their "heavy hitters" (Highlights and [] below are mine...) :  https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

"This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" - groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years. While contributions to outside groups like super PACs do not factor into an organization's designation as a "heavy hitter" (a listing of about 150 groups), those numbers are included for the roster below.

For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs - enough to put him at No. 2 on this list [ygd: in one year even though the list covers 25 years of contributions...]. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control. Neither Adelson nor Bloomberg - or the organizations they report as their employers - qualifies as a "heavy hitter" under our current definition. It's also important to note that we aren't including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority - because these groups hide their donors; see a list of top donors that we've been able to identify to such groups. We are working to revise this list to take into account the new realities of campaign finance created by the Citizens United decision, but as it currently stands, there are significant omissions.

It is also worth noting that certain organizations, such as ActBlue and Club for Growth, are included although they function for the most part as pass-through entities: individual donors give to them with the contributions earmarked for specific candidates."
 
2014-04-02 12:45:44 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...


All that money goes into the economy, so technically it's not "wasted". Advertisers, event managers, I don't know who else, all profit. This actually helps spread the wealth and stimulates the economy.

Fun to think that the Kochs' big spending on propaganda and real efforts to stymie the Recovery under Obama probably help speed it up.
 
2014-04-02 12:45:46 PM  

Miss Alexandra: I think what needs to be done--and yeah, I know, it's a pipe dream--everyone who's registered to vote should vote for anyone EXCEPT Republicans and Democrats.  Write someone's name in if you want, so long as the person meets the qualifications for the office in question.  The objective here is to get the current crop of Congress critters out of office.  (Say that rapidly a few times.)


Wrong. That mentality is why we are in this mess. Votes for Nader beget Bush, which beget Roberts and Alito who shat this vile decision out of their asses.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:46:07 PM  

R.A.Danny: d23: JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.

I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.

Money is a tool. Using it to be heard is protected.


Bullshiat.  The argument IMPLIES that the rich person should have more speech than you do.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:13 PM  

R.A.Danny: Money is a tool.


Money is power.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:20 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Clarence Thomas would eagerly overturn the 13th Amendment if given a chance, and then sing a happy song as he's lead off in chains to work in Masshuh David Koch's plantations.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:22 PM  

Nabb1: AliceBToklasLives: Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: Unfortunately the most liberal justice in the history of the court held 30 years ago that that is not a legitimate interest of the government trumping the first amendment.

Forget it, man. No one is listening.

No dude, we get that spending money in pursuance of free speech is part of that free speech.  But it is insane to claim that there is some kind of equivalence between the $1,000 I could spend to express my free speech and the $50,000,000 that one of the Koch brothers could spend to express his free speech.

In this particular instance, the Koch brothers couldn't spend that much on contributions to individual candidates and the party national committees if they wanted to. This was purely about the aggregate limit to individual candidates. PAC money is a whole different issue than what was before the Court. If some rich guy wants to contribute the individual maximum to a candidate for every seat in the House, Senate (well, one third, since those are all that are up in any two year cycle) and President (every other go around), that's not going to add up to $50 million for the two of them.


Yes - the example I provided is more relevant to Citizens United, not this ruling.  But the basic principle is the same.  I can spend $1,000 on a political candidate, but for millions of folks even that much money is realistically beyond their means.  Do I deserve more of a voice than someone working a minimum-wage job?
 
2014-04-02 12:46:35 PM  

d23: Mikey1969: Should be noted:

The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.

You still can't contribute more than $2600 directly to a single candidate, this just means that you can give $2600 to as many separate candidates as you want. Still not cool, but not quite the "buy a politician" line people are acting like.

If you can't see why donating $2600 to several hundred candidates isn't a problem I don't know what to tell you.

Again, why should one be allowed to donate to candidates one can't vote for?


I'm always leery when someone replies to a post this quick. Usually means that they didn't actually read my post. I'm saying that the people who think this is removing contribution limits for single politicians are wrong. I highlighted, bolded, enlarged and underlined the part where I mentioned that this still isn't a cool decision.

Besides, the limit they removed was like $126,000 total anyway, that's a lot of politicians to begin with.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:43 PM  
img3.wikia.nocookie.net

Plutocracy? I'm not taking anymore orders from a dog. Last time I did, I lost my job at the post office and some guy named Newman stole my mail bag.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:48 PM  

NickelP: That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.


Well, the point that was brought up by one of the dissenting opinions is that in effect, the aggregate effect of a bunch of rich guys being uncapped as to number of candidates is the same thing as uncapping as to individual candidates.  If enough guys get together and spread around enough money to get 8 million to each candidate.  How is that any different from donating 8 million to one candidate directly?  There is a grain of truth to that.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:53 PM  
Unfortunately nothing will change, for you see people are cretins. They will protest if you get their food wrong, cancel their TV show, insult their sports team, but take away their liberties...no one cares.
 
2014-04-02 12:46:53 PM  

Grungehamster: I absolutely disagree with the ruling and think it's ridiculous, but Roberts does concede that money does corrupt politics. He just argues that there is nothing you can do to prevent such influence beyond contribution caps on individual races (and Clarence Thomas claims even those are unconstitutional.)


Yup.

Also Jesus Thomas, outside of a few patent opinions, you are always the crazy guy in the corner.  Doesn't that bother you?
 
2014-04-02 12:46:55 PM  
Campaign Finance Reform could be handled in one of two methods - perhaps both.

1.  Donations can only be accepted from registered voters.  If you haven't registered to vote you have elected to not have your voice heard.

2.  Donate as much as you'd like but all donations enter a single pool and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, can apply for funding.  The amount you're eligible for will depend on the position (Governor, Senator, President, County Clerk, etc.) you're running for and your opposition will receive a like amount.

PAC's, Unions, SIG's, etc. are the biggest detriment we have to fair and equitable representation, spanning the divide between classes, promoting the poor and needy, balancing the budget and just about all other struggles we have.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:46:57 PM  

MrBallou: All that money goes into the economy, so technically it's not "wasted". Advertisers, event managers, I don't know who else, all profit. This actually helps spread the wealth and stimulates the economy.


Yeah... ask that guy with the "will work for food" sign how that is working out for him.
 
2014-04-02 12:47:21 PM  

hasty ambush: Kevin72: If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.

[www.trunews.com image 850x703]


DRINK!
 
2014-04-02 12:48:13 PM  

EmmaLou: This is why who the president is matters, really. They appoint these lifers on the Court. I'd like to think that at some point SCOTUS was a group of people who actually cared about the US and took hard stands to protect our freedom because it's pretty plain to see it's a bunch of idiots being persuaded by big money like every other branch of government. Thanks Alito, Roberts, and the evil Scalia-Thomas monster.


To be fair, SCOTUS also upheld "separate but equal" for 50 years.
 
2014-04-02 12:48:21 PM  
Help me out:

1) money is speech
2) speech is free by way of the 1st amendment

therefore

3) money is free

Can I start counterfeiting now?
 
2014-04-02 12:48:40 PM  
Now that bribery is free speech this should be fun
 
2014-04-02 12:48:46 PM  

d23: R.A.Danny: d23: JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.

I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.

Money is a tool. Using it to be heard is protected.

Bullshiat.  The argument IMPLIES that the rich person should have more speech than you do.


For the sake of argument, why shouldn't they?

Money is power.  They have more money.  Thus, they have more power.

The only way to make things "fair." would be either to decouple power and money, which isn't possible, because they are the same thing; or to give everyone equal money.
 
2014-04-02 12:48:48 PM  

MattStafford: Coconut Approved Solution


See, even though you and I agree on almost nothing, this is why I can still stand you.  You can self efface at times.

:)
 
2014-04-02 12:49:05 PM  
I wonder if the biggest effect from this decision will be seen at the lower levels of government; the local and state levels, not the Federal. Congress and Presidential elections already had millions of dollars funnelled their direction either through PAC's or direct contributions. Local candidates though almost always had to claw and beg for every dollar, and there were few PAC's supporting them either. Now there's no limit to how much money by one person (or corporation) can spend to elect politicians; sure they are still limited to a certain amount contributed directly to one politician, but suppose some rich guy decides he wants to contribute that much to EVERY state legislator running for office in his chosen political party? And then contribute the maximum allowed to EVERY local legislator from his party for his city? Here in NC back in 2012 we had the most expensive school board campaign ever; outside state organizations poured money into both sides. Now more of this is going to happen, drowning out the individual voices in favor of those with the most money.

The Oligarchy of America is what we've become.
 
2014-04-02 12:49:23 PM  

DamnYankees: I'm not quite sure what the conservative position on this is.

1) Rich people ought to have more of an influence on politics than poor people.

2) All people should have an equal influence on politics, but the price to make that happen is too high.

3) People actually do have an equal influence on politics, and these restrictions are therefore unnecessary.

It's supposed to be #2, right?


I love playing Devil's Advocate on these kinds of things, but I seriously have nothing.  Constitutionally, it makes sense, but trying to come up with a reason that this particular practice should be allowed outside of "constitution sez so" is a pretty tough task.  I mean, as far as I can tell the line of thinking is this:  "Rich guys are republicans.  You're a republican.  Therefore let these rich guys influence politics because they are the same as you."  And the average person never makes the connection that the tail is wagging the dog, the rich guys are making you republican by these very tactics.  I don't know.
 
2014-04-02 12:49:36 PM  

vonmatrices: Help me out:

1) money is speech
2) speech is free by way of the 1st amendment

therefore

3) money is free

Can I start counterfeiting now?


Speech is only free as in speech.
 
2014-04-02 12:49:51 PM  

DeaH: Still think there's no difference who's elected president? President's from what party appointed the justices voted for this? Justices from which party voted against this?


But Obama is exactly like Bush, and furthermore like such as.
 
2014-04-02 12:50:06 PM  
Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.
 
2014-04-02 12:50:17 PM  

hasty ambush: Kevin72: If Sheldon Adelson wants to buy a president, he should have the right to have a primary so that he can put his hundred million behind the candidate that will at least get the nomination before losing to Hillary in 2014.

[soros.jpg]


DRINK!
 
2014-04-02 12:50:35 PM  
So those of us still paying taxes get to have a bigger say things. Great news! That's the way it should be.

It will be a good counter balance to the 47% who pay nothing and vote for the party that promises them endless free stuff.
 
2014-04-02 12:50:50 PM  
I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.
 
2014-04-02 12:51:03 PM  

GardenWeasel: Miss Alexandra: I think what needs to be done--and yeah, I know, it's a pipe dream--everyone who's registered to vote should vote for anyone EXCEPT Republicans and Democrats.  Write someone's name in if you want, so long as the person meets the qualifications for the office in question.  The objective here is to get the current crop of Congress critters out of office.  (Say that rapidly a few times.)

Wrong. That mentality is why we are in this mess. Votes for Nader beget Bush, which beget Roberts and Alito who shat this vile decision out of their asses.


You're assuming that there's actually a difference between the "two" major parties.  If there was, you'd have a point.

Say you get 45% of votes for R, 40% of votes for D, and 15% of votes for a third party.  A Democrat would claim that a lot of the 15% would have voted for D.  I get that.

But here's the thing:  I count that as 85% of votes for the New World Order party and 15% against it.  Because I see no difference between R and D.  Just the packaging.

And people who run for Congress need to do so with the idea that they are SERVING their constituents, not the other way around.  That's why it's called public SERVICE.  You run for Congress, you need to have the mindset that you're going to be a servant, not an overlord.
 
2014-04-02 12:51:07 PM  
WTF does that have to do with speech?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-02 12:51:09 PM  

sendtodave: For the sake of argument, why shouldn't they?


Because a citizen is supposed to have equal protection and equal representation in government.  There is no trailing clause to the phrasing that says "...unless you earn more money then you should have more voice."

The constitution is set up as a republic and it's not with regard to how much one earns or has in the bank.
 
2014-04-02 12:51:14 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


As per the link that JungleBoogie provided, Sheldon Adelson alone would be in slot 16, just in the last election cycle.  Despite your claim that's recorded political spending in the last 25 years.

Your list seems to indicate that Democrats are more scrupulous about actually providing transparency about where their money comes from, not that conservative figures aren't contributing tens of millions.
 
2014-04-02 12:51:21 PM  

DamnYankees: Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?


How else would you suggest we handle it?  Everyone polling over X gets an equal share?  Everyone on the ballot gets an equal share?  If you set the bar too low, you will get lots of extreme fringe candidates getting money that shouldn't be.  If you set the bar too high, it just reinforces the status quo.  I'm open to suggestions, however, and just made that solution up about 10 minutes ago.
 
2014-04-02 12:51:41 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Yes - the example I provided is more relevant to Citizens United, not this ruling. But the basic principle is the same. I can spend $1,000 on a political candidate, but for millions of folks even that much money is realistically beyond their means. Do I deserve more of a voice than someone working a minimum-wage job?


I would think the answer would be no as a moral point.  But remember this is not a moral point we are discussing, but a legal one.  The First Amendment is a negative right - a restriction against government meddling in speech.  Thus it could be (and has been) argued that the first amendment doesn't mandate any fairness with regard to the effectiveness of expression.  We are not all made to talk as softly as the quietest man, nor dance as poorly as the most uncoordinated.  Instead, the First Amendment is generally viewed to prevent only the government from farking with the game.  Thus a law mandating such equality coming from the government would be precluded.

TL;DR the First Amendment isn't meant to make the game fair, it exists to keep government from interfering with the game at all.

/for a delightfully contrary opinion, see Breyer's dissent from this case.  I don;t think he is right, but man i wish he was.
 
2014-04-02 12:52:00 PM  

zedster: Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).


So if money is free speech, can I spend my money to buy a sniper?  Is that protected under the 1st Amendment?  Is that not "political speech?"

From the same assholes who deny the Separation of Church and State part of the 1st Amendment.
 
2014-04-02 12:52:02 PM  

sendtodave: vonmatrices: Help me out:

1) money is speech
2) speech is free by way of the 1st amendment

therefore

3) money is free

Can I start counterfeiting now?

Speech is only free as in speech.


Man, don't ruin my fun with liberty vs gratis argument about the word free.
 
2014-04-02 12:52:19 PM  
"Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Roberts wrote.

Where does Roberts live? In the USA you donate to elections and later you cozy up to your rep and say, "remember all that money?"

Been the same way the last 40 years I've been here anyway.
 
2014-04-02 12:52:26 PM  

Teiritzamna: Grungehamster: I absolutely disagree with the ruling and think it's ridiculous, but Roberts does concede that money does corrupt politics. He just argues that there is nothing you can do to prevent such influence beyond contribution caps on individual races (and Clarence Thomas claims even those are unconstitutional.)

Yup.

Also Jesus Thomas, outside of a few patent opinions, you are always the crazy guy in the corner.  Doesn't that bother you?


I can't wait to watch Republicans squeal in impotent rage when the Democrats start using this decision as a bludgeon after regaining the House in '16.
 
2014-04-02 12:52:36 PM  

d23: R.A.Danny: d23: JungleBoogie: So, if money is political speech, rich guys have a lot more political speech than you do.

Top Romney and Obama donors, from Politico.

I think that's precisely the flaw in the argument... and why the "money = speech" argument is such tortured logic.

Money is a tool. Using it to be heard is protected.

Bullshiat.  The argument IMPLIES that the rich person should have more speech than you do.


Nothing is implied.
 
2014-04-02 12:52:40 PM  

serial_crusher: Maybe we should all agree as a society to do diligent research into the candidates and their positions, and not let flashy TV commercials control our opinions.  Yeah, that sure would be swell.

/ A man can dream can't he?  A man can dream...


It is starting to happen.  Karl rove dropped  half a billion of other people's money on various races and crapped out on every single one.  in 2008, the Billionaire owner of Massey Energy tried the same thing in WV essentially trying to buy a majority in the statehouse by setting up a PAC that spent millions per candidate in races where total expenditures previously had been only in the low tens of thousands.

Again, he failed.  Utterly.  NONE of his candidates were elected
 
2014-04-02 12:52:54 PM  

Serious Black: SphericalTime: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

Do I have a First Amendment right to kick John Roberts in the groin whilst wearing a steel-toed boot?


No.  There is not freedom to commit assault.
Unfortaunately.
 
2014-04-02 12:53:11 PM  
Supremely corrupt.
 
2014-04-02 12:53:17 PM  

FlashHarry: In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.


Understand this is not about the 1% controlling elections, it is about the .01% controlling elections.
 
2014-04-02 12:53:19 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.


Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.
 
2014-04-02 12:53:25 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.


You think that the rich and powerful having more riches and power, is going to cause the downfall of society?

Have you been paying attention to how humans repeatedly organize themselves over the last 10,000 years?

The rich having more power than you IS society.
 
2014-04-02 12:53:55 PM  

farm machine: 2.  Donate as much as you'd like but all donations enter a single pool and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, can apply for funding.  The amount you're eligible for will depend on the position (Governor, Senator, President, County Clerk, etc.) you're running for and your opposition will receive a like amount.


I like this concept, but why even donate?  Just have the government fund it straightaway.  The only question is what requirements would have to be met to apply for funding, and will all applicants receive the same amount?  For example, if the Neo-Nazi candidate applied for funding, should we give him the same amount that Obama would receive?
 
2014-04-02 12:54:33 PM  

d23: sendtodave: For the sake of argument, why shouldn't they?

Because a citizen is supposed to have equal protection and equal representation in government.  There is no trailing clause to the phrasing that says "...unless you earn more money then you should have more voice."

The constitution is set up as a republic and it's not with regard to how much one earns or has in the bank.


Did you even read the rest of my post?
 
2014-04-02 12:54:34 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?

How else would you suggest we handle it?  Everyone polling over X gets an equal share?  Everyone on the ballot gets an equal share?  If you set the bar too low, you will get lots of extreme fringe candidates getting money that shouldn't be.  If you set the bar too high, it just reinforces the status quo.  I'm open to suggestions, however, and just made that solution up about 10 minutes ago.


I would probably make a rule saying something like "if you're polling above X% within 12 months of the election, you get Y dollars, and then if you're polling above Z% within 4 months of the election, you get another Y dollars." Something like that.
 
2014-04-02 12:54:35 PM  
FTA: "If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition."

Except flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades don't offend me at all. The rape and pillaging of our legislative system and democracy as a concept does offend me greatly, however. How can these things be equated?
 
2014-04-02 12:54:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.


If there's any Justice that needs to volunteer for an immediate fatal coronary, it's him.  It would be the only original or useful thing he's done his entire time on the Court.

/but there isn't any justice
 
2014-04-02 12:54:59 PM  
 
2014-04-02 12:55:13 PM  
I'll wait for Fudge Supreme's ruling.
 
2014-04-02 12:55:25 PM  
Mr. Justice Roberts' Words FTFA:

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects," Roberts wrote. "If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

Conclusive proof Roberts is a moron. And so is every person--every single one--who agree with this passage.

The issue isn't that campaign donations are "offensive." It is that they corrupt the process of government.   Neither flag burning nor funeral protests nor Nazi parades do so.

Conservatives: you want to impeach Roberts for NFIB v. Sebelius. I'm on board with you now. Not because I disagree with this decision, but because his reasoning proves he has been fully lobotomized and is therefore unfit to serve. Let's get this fancy lad off the court ASAP.
 
2014-04-02 12:55:26 PM  

vonmatrices: Help me out:

1) money is speech


No.  Expending money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that conduct.

2) speech is free by way of the 1st amendment

The government cannot generally preclude expressive conduct (outside of certain exceptions, see, e.g., obscenity) without showing that there is a compelling government interest and that the preclusion was necessary in meeting that interest.

therefore

3) money is free

Can I start counterfeiting now?


Alas, no.  Even if counterfeiting was held to be an expressive activity ("i am counterfeiting artistically), preventing counterfeiting is likley a compelling government interest and thus can be precluded.
 
2014-04-02 12:55:32 PM  

FedExPope: FTA: "If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition."

Except flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades don't offend me at all. The rape and pillaging of our legislative system and democracy as a concept does offend me greatly, however. How can these things be equated?


They are both protected speech. This was already covered.
 
2014-04-02 12:55:38 PM  

serial_crusher: Maybe we should all agree as a society to do diligent research into the candidates and their positions, and not let flashy TV commercials control our opinions.  Yeah, that sure would be swell.

/ A man can dream can't he?  A man can dream...


I've completely read every response up to yours, and I think it's the best. There may be others I haven't gotten to yet, but your reply hits on two things that others here seem to miss.
1) Right off the bat, "Personal Accountability". It seems most people simply want to be fed everything and then blame others when they get sick, versus making an effort to think for themselves and have an interest in what they are eating. In other words, too many too lazy to act for themselves and then blaming others when things don't go their way.

2) "Come to me with solutions, not problems." Seems most of the replies prior to your's are people whining about what is already known and offering no solutions. Your reply, while simplistic in its premise, is at least 'something', which is more than nothing. Strangely enough, it's also the most tangible and easily implemented by the masses. ...probably why it will never catch on.
 
2014-04-02 12:56:05 PM  

Bendal: I wonder if the biggest effect from this decision will be seen at the lower levels of government; the local and state levels, not the Federal. Congress and Presidential elections already had millions of dollars funnelled their direction either through PAC's or direct contributions. Local candidates though almost always had to claw and beg for every dollar, and there were few PAC's supporting them either. Now there's no limit to how much money by one person (or corporation) can spend to elect politicians; sure they are still limited to a certain amount contributed directly to one politician, but suppose some rich guy decides he wants to contribute that much to EVERY state legislator running for office in his chosen political party? And then contribute the maximum allowed to EVERY local legislator from his party for his city? Here in NC back in 2012 we had the most expensive school board campaign ever; outside state organizations poured money into both sides. Now more of this is going to happen, drowning out the individual voices in favor of those with the most money.

The Oligarchy of America is what we've become.


This is what pisses me off.  I'd strongly favor limiting contributions somehow if you aren't even eligible to vote for the person.  If you live in Maine you don't need to be farking with politics in Florida for example.
 
2014-04-02 12:56:20 PM  

NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.


Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?
 
2014-04-02 12:56:45 PM  

Baz744: The issue isn't that campaign donations are "offensive." It is that they corrupt the process of government.   Neither flag burning nor funeral protests nor Nazi parades do so.


Seriously. What a god awful argument. The issue with campaign finance isn't one of "offense". It's an entirely different thing.
 
2014-04-02 12:57:02 PM  

cchris_39: So those of us still paying taxes get to have a bigger say things. Great news! That's the way it should be.

It will be a good counter balance to the 47% who pay nothing and vote for the party that promises them endless free stuff.


Regurgitating talking points from 2012?  That's sad even for you, mr Internet CFO.
 
2014-04-02 12:57:06 PM  

cchris_39: So those of us still paying taxes get to have a bigger say things. Great news! That's the way it should be.

It will be a good counter balance to the 47% who pay nothing and vote for the party that promises them endless free stuff.


47% of the country voted for Romney.  Weird coincidence, huh?

Also, no, this means people that can afford to offshore their money have a bigger say in things, not tax paying Americans.  Anyone who thinks this isn't a giant F you to the vast majority of tax paying Americans is an idiot.
 
2014-04-02 12:57:27 PM  

MattStafford: I love playing Devil's Advocate on these kinds of things, but I seriously have nothing.  Constitutionally, it makes sense, but trying to come up with a reason that this particular practice should be allowed outside of "constitution sez so" is a pretty tough task.


Shouldn't a court ruling on constitutionality be based only on "constitution sez so"?
 
2014-04-02 12:57:32 PM  
What's the big deal? At least we don't need superPACs anymore
 
2014-04-02 12:57:36 PM  
Good. Now maybe the Libertarians can take in some serious money.
 
2014-04-02 12:57:56 PM  

Teiritzamna: No.  Expending money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that conduct.


So why can't I just outright bribe people? Shouldn't that be legal? It's just expending money in the furtherance of expressing my desire that the official I've targeted implement my stated goals.
 
2014-04-02 12:58:01 PM  

Teiritzamna: bglove25: Except that same liberal justice would have laughed at the reasoning of Citizen's United and would never have considered the idea of corporations having a free speech right. Accordingly, he may just have changed his ruling with that consideration (unlike our current idiot brigade).

I am honestly not sure about Brennan's reaction to CU, as his position was almost always the expansion of rights and CU is heavily based on Buckley as well. 

As to McCutcheon, I am glad Breyer actually got his shiat together for this dissent, it is a corker:

"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary "chain of communication" between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point." Slip Op. at 57 (J. Breyer, Dissent)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce

So, yeah, pretty sure he would have shiat all over CU.
 
2014-04-02 12:58:32 PM  

Son of Thunder: Shouldn't a court ruling on constitutionality be based only on "constitution sez so"?


Perhaps, but my question (which he was responding to) wasn't about constitutionalism. It was just a general political philosophy question.
 
2014-04-02 12:58:46 PM  

Mikey1969: d23: Mikey1969: Should be noted:

The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.

You still can't contribute more than $2600 directly to a single candidate, this just means that you can give $2600 to as many separate candidates as you want. Still not cool, but not quite the "buy a politician" line people are acting like.

If you can't see why donating $2600 to several hundred candidates isn't a problem I don't know what to tell you.

Again, why should one be allowed to donate to candidates one can't vote for?

I'm always leery when someone replies to a post this quick. Usually means that they didn't actually read my post. I'm saying that the people who think this is removing contribution limits for single politicians are wrong. I highlighted, bolded, enlarged and underlined the part where I mentioned that this still isn't a cool decision.

Besides, the limit they removed was like $126,000 total anyway, that's a lot of politicians to begin with.


As noted in Breyer's dissent, the Parties can quite easily move money around to give any particular candidate they want more than $2 million from any single rich donor (who is now limited to the absolute $3.6 million dollar cap, as there is no one left to donate to after that amount). The entire point of the aggregate was to limit this ability.
 
2014-04-02 12:58:52 PM  

Son of Thunder: MattStafford: I love playing Devil's Advocate on these kinds of things, but I seriously have nothing.  Constitutionally, it makes sense, but trying to come up with a reason that this particular practice should be allowed outside of "constitution sez so" is a pretty tough task.

Shouldn't a court ruling on constitutionality be based only on "constitution sez so"?


Yes, but that's all the more reason for an amendment. That's how the Constitution's supposed to work.
 
2014-04-02 12:59:08 PM  

MattStafford: farm machine: 2.  Donate as much as you'd like but all donations enter a single pool and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, can apply for funding.  The amount you're eligible for will depend on the position (Governor, Senator, President, County Clerk, etc.) you're running for and your opposition will receive a like amount.

I like this concept, but why even donate?  Just have the government fund it straightaway.  The only question is what requirements would have to be met to apply for funding, and will all applicants receive the same amount?  For example, if the Neo-Nazi candidate applied for funding, should we give him the same amount that Obama would receive?


Make them get so many signatures to be eligible for funding to limit it to serious candidates.  Then run them off until you get down to a few with each round seeing increased funding.
 
2014-04-02 12:59:13 PM  

Baz744: The issue isn't that campaign donations are "offensive." It is that they corrupt the process of government. Neither flag burning nor funeral protests nor Nazi parades do so.


He then goes on to address that while large money donations may be corrupting in the lay sense of the word, long standing precedent holds that the only corruption that can trump the first amendmnet is quid pro quo bribery.

I may disagree with that principle, but c'mon lets at least read the whole opinion before calling him a moron.
 
2014-04-02 12:59:37 PM  
And I always thought this would be
The land of milk and honey
Oh but I come to find out
That it's all hate and money
And there's a canopy of greed holding me down
 
2014-04-02 12:59:44 PM  

Serious Black: No Such Agency: Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.   Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.

They already have. Reynolds v. Sims. One man, one vote. Everyone's voice is equal in the political realm.


Only until the corporations and wealthy get it into their heads to fight for the right to have more than one vote based on their wealth (or gain the right to vote for those who work for them).  I mean, seriously, when you see decisions like this, does it seem so far from the realm of possibility that we are going to head that way?  Or worse, they demand that if a citizen makes below a set amount of money, they lose the franchise and their right to vote.
 
2014-04-02 12:59:48 PM  

AngryDragon: Hear that sound?

That's the sound of 535 people instantly and simultaneously achieving sexual release.  Cleanup in the aisle please!


The worrisome point of Congressional bribery isn't that the politicians are for sale. It's that they sell for so cheap.
 
2014-04-02 01:00:03 PM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


Yes, we really need a clear constitutional amendment that limits our rights.  We haven't had one of those since Prohibition.
 
2014-04-02 01:00:06 PM  

DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.


Show me where it says it is not.
 
2014-04-02 01:00:07 PM  

James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.


Time to buy stock in companies that design campaign commercials.
 
2014-04-02 01:00:16 PM  

Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.

Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?


No, they can't donate directly to candidates.  Its pretty helpful to have a superpac say 'hey we are going to run 100 mil in adds against your opponent'.  Its really farking helpful to have some group say 'you got a pen, you vote right on this you get a 100 mil check'
 
2014-04-02 01:00:16 PM  

Teiritzamna: He then goes on to address that while large money donations may be corrupting in the lay sense of the word, long standing precedent holds that the only corruption that can trump the first amendmnet is quid pro quo bribery.


Wasn't his "long standing precedent" his own decision from 4 years ago? What else was there?
 
2014-04-02 01:00:33 PM  

DamnYankees: I would probably make a rule saying something like "if you're polling above X% within 12 months of the election, you get Y dollars, and then if you're polling above Z% within 4 months of the election, you get another Y dollars." Something like that.


I could go with something like that.  If you're on the ballot, you get one million dollars/month.  If you're polling above 0%, you get 10 million dollars/month.  If you're polling about 25% you get 20 million dollars a month.  Amounts and levels subject to change, of course.

I also like this approach as it puts a limit on a campaigns spending, therefore the administration has to work with a strict budget, and working with a strict budget really gets me going, if you know what I mean.
 
2014-04-02 01:00:38 PM  

Son of Thunder: MattStafford: I love playing Devil's Advocate on these kinds of things, but I seriously have nothing.  Constitutionally, it makes sense, but trying to come up with a reason that this particular practice should be allowed outside of "constitution sez so" is a pretty tough task.

Shouldn't a court ruling on constitutionality be based only on "constitution sez so"?


The SC has always held that rights are not absolute.  (You can't yell fire in a crowded theater)  Bribing elected officials is an interesting place to draw the line.
 
2014-04-02 01:01:27 PM  
You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.
 
2014-04-02 01:01:36 PM  

MattStafford: I like this concept, but why even donate? Just have the government fund it straightaway. The only question is what requirements would have to be met to apply for funding, and will all applicants receive the same amount? For example, if the Neo-Nazi candidate applied for funding, should we give him the same amount that Obama would receive?


If the Neo-Nazi candidate can satisfy all the requirements to get on the ballot then yes, they receive the same amount as the other candidates running for that office.  We don't have to agree with their ideology or platform but they have just as much right to be on the ticket as any other candidate.  We also need to make changes to eliminate the barriers to entry that the Republicans and Democrats have crafted over the years to prevent lesser parties from entering the race.  The two party system clearly doesn't work and bi-partisanship only comes into play when it involves politicians protecting what they have created.
 
2014-04-02 01:01:43 PM  

bglove25: So, yeah, pretty sure he would have shiat all over CU.



Fair enough - forgot about his concurrence in Austin.

Man I miss Brennan.
 
2014-04-02 01:02:13 PM  

d23: I don't think that means that you should allow the rich to buy theoretical bullhorns to drown out everyone else's voice, however. Big money lobbying came of age in 1980, and I don't think any founding father or politician before that date had any inkling that money would band together in such a way that a single constituent no longer mattered AT ALL.


Go take a look at how the Senate used to work, then look at why it was organized this way.
 
2014-04-02 01:02:20 PM  

DamnYankees: Wasn't his "long standing precedent" his own decision from 4 years ago? What else was there?


Buckley v. Valeo - 1976.
 
2014-04-02 01:02:24 PM  
Nobody in this thread matters at all.

Not my decision, just pointing it out the obvious consequence
 
2014-04-02 01:02:26 PM  

Son of Thunder: Shouldn't a court ruling on constitutionality be based only on "constitution sez so"?


I'm not disagreeing with the court ruling - I think it makes sense.  I'm just trying to think of a way the republicans would sell this to their base as a "good" ruling for them.
 
2014-04-02 01:02:27 PM  

rvesco: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Yes, we really need a clear constitutional amendment that limits our rights.  We haven't had one of those since Prohibition.


How about the Defense of Marriage Act?
 
2014-04-02 01:02:38 PM  

farm machine: MattStafford: I like this concept, but why even donate? Just have the government fund it straightaway. The only question is what requirements would have to be met to apply for funding, and will all applicants receive the same amount? For example, if the Neo-Nazi candidate applied for funding, should we give him the same amount that Obama would receive?

If the Neo-Nazi candidate can satisfy all the requirements to get on the ballot then yes, they receive the same amount as the other candidates running for that office.  We don't have to agree with their ideology or platform but they have just as much right to be on the ticket as any other candidate.  We also need to make changes to eliminate the barriers to entry that the Republicans and Democrats have crafted over the years to prevent lesser parties from entering the race.  The two party system clearly doesn't work and bi-partisanship only comes into play when it involves politicians protecting what they have created.


^This.
 
2014-04-02 01:02:50 PM  
How is the action of allowing $2,600 contributions to any and all candidates not ultimately going to lead to some political organization, say the RNC, claiming they represent 50,000 candidates and if you may donate 130 million dollars of which they'll be sure to divvy it up equally (wink wink), right?
 
2014-04-02 01:02:50 PM  

zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'


I've searched the entire opinion for that phrase and cannot seem to find it.  Can anyone point it out to me?
 
2014-04-02 01:02:58 PM  

serial_crusher: Maybe we should all agree as a society to do diligent research into the candidates and their positions, and not let flashy TV commercials control our opinions.  Yeah, that sure would be swell.

/ A man can dream can't he?  A man can dream...


No no no, you're not getting it. Everything bad that happens is always someone else's fault. How dare you hold any of us responsible for our own voting decisions. Just let us watch Fox/MSNBC and vote based off 10 second sound bytes like we always have. If that happens to go wrong, it MUST someone else must be to blame. Corporations, lobbying groups, SCOTUS, etc. Doesn't matter. Just as long as you understand that our own actions never have consequences.
 
2014-04-02 01:02:58 PM  

Warlordtrooper: The SC has always held that rights are not absolute.  (You can't yell fire in a crowded theater)  Bribing elected officials is an interesting place to draw the line.


But why there? Isn't line-drawing sort of the purpose of the legislature, and not courts?
 
2014-04-02 01:03:01 PM  

farm machine: If the Neo-Nazi candidate can satisfy all the requirements to get on the ballot then yes, they receive the same amount as the other candidates running for that office


So my money would be supporting a nazi? Brilliant.
 
2014-04-02 01:03:32 PM  
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-04-02 01:03:50 PM  

Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.


Not being statist assholes, probably not.

The Koch brothers and that fat rich jew in a wheelchair that owns the Venetian sure are though.
 
2014-04-02 01:04:01 PM  
This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?
 
2014-04-02 01:04:03 PM  

Teiritzamna: The First Amendment is a negative right - a restriction against government meddling in speech.  Thus it could be (and has been) argued that the first amendment doesn't mandate any fairness with regard to the effectiveness of expression.  We are not all made to talk as softly as the quietest man, nor dance as poorly as the most uncoordinated.


I tried to think of a counterargument, but I got a sudden headache.
 
2014-04-02 01:04:13 PM  
I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?
 
2014-04-02 01:04:17 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I would probably make a rule saying something like "if you're polling above X% within 12 months of the election, you get Y dollars, and then if you're polling above Z% within 4 months of the election, you get another Y dollars." Something like that.

I could go with something like that.  If you're on the ballot, you get one million dollars/month.  If you're polling above 0%, you get 10 million dollars/month.  If you're polling about 25% you get 20 million dollars a month.  Amounts and levels subject to change, of course.

I also like this approach as it puts a limit on a campaigns spending, therefore the administration has to work with a strict budget, and working with a strict budget really gets me going, if you know what I mean.


I don't know, I don't think tiering would work right as it would still favor big candidates substancially.  You need some cutoff so we don't have a billion people running and wasting millions, but if you can poll above say 1% I am cool with you getting the same as someone polling at 70%.  I want to hear minority views.  I think it would overall be very helpful.
 
2014-04-02 01:04:29 PM  

DamnYankees: So why can't I just outright bribe people? Shouldn't that be legal? It's just expending money in the furtherance of expressing my desire that the official I've targeted implement my stated goals.


As noted, preventing bribery is pretty much the one thing that the Supreme Court has held precludes the right to use money for expressive purposes (well other than other illegal expressive acts, such as artistic robbery and the like).  Unfortunately, that pretty much washes out the soft corruption that is left over when direct bribery is taken off the table.
 
2014-04-02 01:04:32 PM  
I find the elimination of the aggregate cap logical given current law. As long as donors observe the individual cap, there's no reason they should be limited as to how many candidates to whom they may donate.

That being said, money isn't speech. Donating money to a candidate is commerce, for the expectation is that a sum of money tendered to that candidate will result in the provision of certain services. It is absolutely quid pro quo on its face. Example: I donate to candidate X because he will propone/sign legislation that will increase funding for scientific research. Such legislation is a service I expect for the money I pay. My vote is simply the endorsement of that candidate for that office, that is, speech in their favor.

Votes are speech. Money is not. SCOTUS needs to pull its head out of its arse.
 
2014-04-02 01:04:53 PM  

sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?


I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?
 
2014-04-02 01:05:47 PM  

Teiritzamna: DamnYankees: So why can't I just outright bribe people? Shouldn't that be legal? It's just expending money in the furtherance of expressing my desire that the official I've targeted implement my stated goals.

As noted, preventing bribery is pretty much the one thing that the Supreme Court has held precludes the right to use money for expressive purposes (well other than other illegal expressive acts, such as artistic robbery and the like).  Unfortunately, that pretty much washes out the soft corruption that is left over when direct bribery is taken off the table.


Yes, I understand that's the actual law. I'm asking you (or the court) to justify it.
 
2014-04-02 01:06:04 PM  
Don't look at me, I voted for Kang.
 
2014-04-02 01:06:13 PM  

kpaxoid: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

The purpose of the regulation of campaign contributions is not to protect against corruption.

The purpose is to protect against indirect and hidden governance by entities who have enough material wealth to affect the outcome of elections, or affect the decision making of the elected.

Without this, one man - one vote is meaningless.


I fail to see how your two separate points are not the same or are mutually exclusive.
 
2014-04-02 01:06:30 PM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


If we're going to craft an amendment, my personal vote is that we restrict donations to entities that actually reside within the district of the election they're donating to, e.g. no donating to Texas gubernatorial elections if you live in Massachusetts or your company is incorporated in Delaware.

I don't actually have a problem with the specific thing the court decided on here (aggregate caps are just an effective limit on how many candidates you can support since individual candidate caps are still in play, which is silly), I just think that if we're going to let money play as votes we need to do it in a fashion that's representative, meaning out-of-district interests shouldn't be able to hijack in-district elections.

// The example of "incorporated in Delaware" was  not chosen at random.
 
2014-04-02 01:06:44 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.


So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?
 
2014-04-02 01:07:12 PM  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98

It's George Carlin so obviously you might not want to watch it at work.
 
2014-04-02 01:07:44 PM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?


"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.
 
2014-04-02 01:07:57 PM  
Certain members of that court were appointed specifically for rulings like this. We were all warned.
 
2014-04-02 01:08:06 PM  

vonmatrices: I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?


Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not. If you have contributed to a campaign and are butthurt because someone else contributed more I really can't help you.
 
2014-04-02 01:08:27 PM  

sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?


Plato conceived of one, but I don't want to live there.
 
2014-04-02 01:08:34 PM  

Misch: Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.


Lol, I read that too ! Koch brothers got godwinned by their own boy !
 
2014-04-02 01:08:44 PM  

vonmatrices: I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?


The same reason insider trading laws don't apply to them (hint they make the laws)
 
2014-04-02 01:08:44 PM  

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.


The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.
 
2014-04-02 01:08:49 PM  

Jim_Callahan: If we're going to craft an amendment, my personal vote is that we restrict donations to entities that actually reside within the district of the election they're donating to, e.g. no donating to Texas gubernatorial elections if you live in Massachusetts or your company is incorporated in Delaware.


Not sure how this would work given corporations. You could just create a corporation in every state.

But yes, this is a massive, massive issue. There's a great article I just read about the Koch's getting involved in a local bus line funding case in TN, a state and issue where they have ZERO personal or economic interest. It's entirely about just using their money to create a testing ground, impacting the lives of thousands of people for shiats and giggles.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/why_are_the_kochs_trying_to_stop_a_t ra nsit_project_in_nashville/
 
2014-04-02 01:08:56 PM  
They should go ahead and allow direct wire transfers to the candidate's bank account, declare them tax free, and prevent disclosure.
Next up, corporate surgically implanted pacemakers for lawmakers with a remote kill switch if they do not vote the right way.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:25 PM  

R.A.Danny: Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not.


What's the difference?
 
2014-04-02 01:09:42 PM  
Whelp, the country is toast.

Remember this next time you see a mouthbreather teatard on a hoveround crowing about supporting "freedom," "liberty" and especially "democracy," since those are now strictly historical phenomena in the US. As far as being a "beacon of light in a world of tyranny" and all that cute historical language, well, I don't think everyone realizes that we've actually turned from the good guys into the bad guys. I weep for what our country once was and am glad its founders can't see this.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Yes, I understand that's the actual law. I'm asking you (or the court) to justify it.


1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?
2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?

Justify your ire.
 
2014-04-02 01:09:50 PM  
How did I know it would be 5-4 in favor of "fark you, peon" the moment I saw the fail tag...
 
2014-04-02 01:10:02 PM  
images.politico.com

"Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design."
 
2014-04-02 01:10:05 PM  
This was correctly decided given CU but if we can have a direct contribution limit then it needs to be shrunk to a somewhat smaller amount.  $100 maybe.
 
2014-04-02 01:10:17 PM  

R.A.Danny: So my money would be supporting a nazi? Brilliant.


I'm sure that your money already supports a number of things you don't agree with and would prefer not to fund.  You'll get over it.
 
2014-04-02 01:10:43 PM  
..all people are created equal (Addendum1) and that some people are created more equal than others (end: Addendum1)
 
2014-04-02 01:10:48 PM  

DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.

So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?


That's what the court is for. I'm just saying this is how the system was designed. It's not perfect by any stretch.
 
2014-04-02 01:11:19 PM  

DamnYankees: Yes, I understand that's the actual law. I'm asking you (or the court) to justify it.


Well there are a few arguments that i know of:

1) Bribery is directly corrupting and is the clearest and easiest case to determine corruption.  Thus the government wouldn't be over-inclusive in precluding it.  By that i mean that general campaign donations may be corrupting, but they may not be.  and offer a lot of hard line drawing problems: how much is too much, if $5000 is corrupting, why isn't $4,999?  Should the number move with inflation? What about various areas of the country which have cheaper ad buys?  Bribery offers a clean bright line - you give someone any amount of money in exchange for direct political favors, and boom, illegal.  General limits on spending to prevent corruption can sweep up too many legitimate acts of expression that were not corruptive, and theoretically many of the harms you fear can be precluded by other less restrictive means, such as publication of donor lists and the like.

2) Bribery was illegal at the time of the framing and stayed illegal.  Thus the drafters of the first amendment did not view quid pro quo expenditures as being an expressive act protected by the first amendment.

/as usually in these threads, this doesn't mean i agree with these points, but here they are.
 
2014-04-02 01:11:36 PM  
Sweet! I'm gonna go buy me a whole bunch of congressmen and then pass whatever laws I want! Suck it, poors!
 
2014-04-02 01:12:02 PM  

R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?


Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?


No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.


My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.
 
2014-04-02 01:12:40 PM  
http://www.wolf-pac.com/petition

TYT is actually getting bills introduced at the State level calling for a constitutional convention for an amendment to get money out of politics.  No way will Congress pass this on their own.  It must come from the States.
 
2014-04-02 01:13:09 PM  

rvesco: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Yes, we really need a clear constitutional amendment that limits our rights.  We haven't had one of those since Prohibition.


Yeah, I know this is trolling, but my response is "I'm willing to give this one a try."
 
2014-04-02 01:13:21 PM  

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?

Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?

No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.

My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.


Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.
 
2014-04-02 01:13:46 PM  
let it flow, for all the good it will do for them. In my opinion, Citizen's United was a total and continuing backfire. It didn't work. All it did was bring more crazies in that aren't electable. Keep it coming idiots. Money can't fix everything.
 
2014-04-02 01:14:10 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.


Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).
 
2014-04-02 01:14:13 PM  

Teiritzamna: 1) Bribery is directly corrupting and is the clearest and easiest case to determine corruption.


Snipping your comment for space reasons.

This is an argument that kind of makes sense, but it takes us a step back to "in what world is a panel of judges, as opposed to a legislature, capable of determining where the line is"? Aren't these people against judicial activism? Isn't the whole point of a legislature to determine these things?

Teiritzamna: 2) Bribery was illegal at the time of the framing and stayed illegal.  Thus the drafters of the first amendment did not view quid pro quo expenditures as being an expressive act protected by the first amendment.


I take it you don't agree with this, so I won't even try to rebut it. It's a terrible argument.
 
2014-04-02 01:14:28 PM  

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: 1) Have you ever contributed to a candidate or party?

Yes.

R.A.Danny: 2) Are you now pissed that someone with more money can also contribute to a candidate or a party?

No, why would I be pissed at that?

Or did you mean to ask if I'm pissed they can contribute *MORE* money? Not really pissed at that either. I didn't give that much.

R.A.Danny: Justify your ire.

My ire on this is mostly my loathing of how bad the justices who make up the conservative majority are. It's a legal ire. Their opinions on this, the VRA and the Obamacare commerce-clause issue are just horrible peices of legal reasoning.


wait for the hobby lobby ruling.  They are going to decide a corporation has a right to religious freedom and can exempt itself from all kinds of shiat.
 
2014-04-02 01:14:57 PM  

R.A.Danny: vonmatrices: I've worked in State Government and Federal Government as an employee, contractor, and member of the military.

At each level I have been given strict ethics classes and training saying that I cannot accept any kind of monetary value over a certain dollar amount in my position.  Accepting any gifts or donations in this manner would be construed as possible graft, bribery or corruption.

Why are candidates for office different?

Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not. If you have contributed to a campaign and are butthurt because someone else contributed more I really can't help you.


Let me spell out my position:

1) There is no issue with anyone using their own money to set up a soapbox to speak from.  If the Koch brothers or George Soros or whatever wants to buy a TV station and tell the world how great their party and candidates are, go ahead.  Hell, we already have MSNBC and Fox News that act in this manner.

2) But when you give money to a singular candidate, it becomes difficult for that candidate not to pay attention to the needs of that donor.

3) Even if that candidate would have done the same things anyway - any actions that candidate does that favors the donor can possibly be viewed as corrupt - if not by law then at very least by the public.

4) Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?
 
2014-04-02 01:15:14 PM  

R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.


All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
 
2014-04-02 01:15:54 PM  

vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?


Government employees aren't rulers.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:11 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...


No kidding.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:36 PM  

Generation_D: Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.

Not being statist assholes, probably not.

The Koch brothers and that fat rich jew in a wheelchair that owns the Venetian sure are though.


"Nanny" Bloomberg and Soros not statists? Your troll-fu is weak.

1/10
 
2014-04-02 01:16:46 PM  

sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.


What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
 
2014-04-02 01:16:59 PM  

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."


That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.
 
2014-04-02 01:17:26 PM  
Is this the thread where all the Republican Farkers jerk each other off because their Party was behind a major judicial ruling, but because they are Republican they are too ignorant to realize that it was actually a bad thing?

The RNC: God, guns, wars against brown people and big ass pickup trucks... because we're greedy kochsuckers!
 
2014-04-02 01:17:31 PM  

Miss Alexandra: As it stands, we have a Republican/Democrat duopoly.  And with not a dime's worth of difference between them, at least not at the national level, and probably not at the state level.


Strongly disagree.

While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.
 
2014-04-02 01:17:40 PM  

sendtodave: We accept that every day.


I 'accept' that people get cancer. That doesn't mean I like it or don't try to support causes fighting against it.
 
2014-04-02 01:17:56 PM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.

rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.
 
2014-04-02 01:18:16 PM  

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.


So you're tapping out of this conversation?
 
2014-04-02 01:18:25 PM  
The "problem" with the Constitution is that it was designed for a responsible and vigilant nation. It recognizes a lot of individual rights that at the time were mostly unheard of. Yes the Magna Carta and other previous documents had a lot of influence on the thinking of the Framers. but never before had a nation been constructed from the ground up with such a framework in place. Intertwined with all that liberty was the danger of it being missused. Bus as Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Well, we haven't been vigilant. Our nation was designed to give the people exactly the government it deserves. A people who pays attention to a candidates  actions, who holds liberty in higher value than temporary free shiat, and wants to be let to live and succeed on their own, not have their hand held like a child gets a government that respects those things. Because that kind of nation would choose a government that does.

But we have a nation that can't be bothered to read anything, much less research what their representatives have done vs. what they say. Combined with the vast majority wanting free shiat from their guy at the expense of the other guy, whether it be a company wanting corporate welfare or a person wanting socialized handouts, we have elected a government that gives us exactly that. Anyone with half a brain could have told us that was a recipe for our own poison. And they did. The Founders told us as much. Churchill reminded everyone that socialism is the gospel of envy, the creed of ignorance which its only inherent value is the equal sharing of misery. Tocqueville told us that a republic can only last until the people realize they can vote themselves free shiat from someone else's pockets. Eisenhower told us to beware the military industrial complex. We have been warned repeatedly that our lack of vigilance in our own government would be our undoing. But instead the entire nation just bought into the idea that if they only just vote for the guy who says they will give their group the most free shiat, everything will be alright. Well, it's not alright. And the fascist nation we live in now is a consequence of our own actions. And actions always have consequences.
 
2014-04-02 01:18:31 PM  

James!: It's not even a planet anymore.


www.animationconnection.com
 
2014-04-02 01:18:33 PM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: We accept that every day.

I 'accept' that people get cancer. That doesn't mean I like it or don't try to support causes fighting against it.


Still no cure for cancer, power inequality.
 
2014-04-02 01:18:50 PM  

sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.

Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).


Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. They can be brought to heel.
 
2014-04-02 01:19:30 PM  

DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?


No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."
 
2014-04-02 01:20:08 PM  

DeaH: Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.


Well this is the problem with texualism.  But lets try it anyway.

The First Amendment states in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

Hrm.  Well that's rather, short, isn't it?  So now we need to ask some further questions.  Primary of them is "What the heck is 'the freedom of speech'?" Does that mean only the freedom to make noises from your throat?  Well while it is possible, it is unlikely.  Given the war that the revolutionaries fought and the arguments made in the federalist papers, a better way to read "the freedom of speech" is "the freedom to express yourself to others."

"Ok.  Well i still dont see 'money' there!" you may decry.  And you would be right, as far as text goes.  However, the ability to express yourself doesn't really mean too much if it is limited only to the ability to do so with only your body.  Surely it must encompass writing, and distributing those writings, right?  Well if that is the case, you had to use physical objects from the real world to facilitate your expression.  It wouldn't be much of a protective right if the government could stop you from talking, but could easily stop you from printing things, or distributing those writings.

So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.  And there you go.  For the first amendment to mean anything, it must include not only speaking out loud with your voice but also expending money to get your message out there.

the problem is when we then shorten that very complicated understanding to a phrase like "money is speech" which is so divorced of the above nuance that it seems a gross contradiction.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:19 PM  

SphericalTime: This is disgusting:

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really?  I think that's exactly what it farking means.



I don't see what the problem is. I fully expect all of the current republican hopefuls to accept my invitation to stop by my house as fast as they did when Sheldon Adelson called.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:23 PM  

d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.


I'm okay with corporations being people if we treat them.the same way that the immortals in Gulliver's Travels were treated.

You don't die because of old age? Very well, after a certain age your possessions get split up and you don't get to own anything to prevent you from owning absolutely everything by sheer virtue of age.

Either that or any company that can't pass an IQ test with a score of at least 85 has someone appointed to act with power of attorney on behalf of that corporation. That person would also be responsible the actions of the corporation. In practice (s)he'd be the CEO, but with an actual chance to be prosecuted for mismanagement/law breaking/endangerment.

/Considering that corporations are merely text on a paper none will pass the test
 
2014-04-02 01:20:25 PM  

sendtodave: DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.


While this may have always been somewhat true, it's a little offensive that it's now the official law of the land.  Might as well repeal all the voting rights amendments and go back to the system where only the rich, land-owning white males get to tell everyone else what to do.  The rest of us can be indentured servants or slaves.  And we'll love them for it because being born not rich means god doesn't love you as much.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:45 PM  

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?

No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."


You haven't said if you agree or disagree, you are just taking a pessimistic view of the Government, which is understandable.
 
2014-04-02 01:20:54 PM  
Great so even more political ads to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPmIQLFbZ3Y
 
2014-04-02 01:21:17 PM  

Cataholic: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

I've searched the entire opinion for that phrase and cannot seem to find it.  Can anyone point it out to me?


That was just his troll-y way of diverting the argument. I do not agree with the SCOTUS decision, but I think zedster could have been more intellectually honest in couching the discussion. The fact is that the SCOTUS made it possible for certain people influence politics in a very negative way and called it "freedom of expression" which shouldn't surprise us. Just like Harry Reid using the "nucler option" this will benefit and backfire on both sides of the republicrats.
 
2014-04-02 01:21:24 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.

Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).

Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. They can be brought to heel.


When?  Where?

I watched a show where a couple white guys when to friggen new Guinea to live with a tribe.

The tribe consisted of a male leader, a holy man, men, and women.  In that order.

This is the very basis of society.  Heck, even primates organize themselves into power hierarchies, where the guys on top get all the best stuff.

And I'm not a libertarian.
 
2014-04-02 01:21:43 PM  
So the ruling doesn't want to limit contributions because there's no guarantee it's a corruptive influence. Ok, no prob. Naturally, it should then favor going absolute disclosure of dates, amounts, in individual + organization names of where those contributions are coming from.

Right?

Right?

Hello?
 
2014-04-02 01:22:17 PM  

DerAppie: d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.

I'm okay with corporations being people if we treat them.the same way that the immortals in Gulliver's Travels were treated.

You don't die because of old age? Very well, after a certain age your possessions get split up and you don't get to own anything to prevent you from owning absolutely everything by sheer virtue of age.

Either that or any company that can't pass an IQ test with a score of at least 85 has someone appointed to act with power of attorney on behalf of that corporation. That person would also be responsible the actions of the corporation. In practice (s)he'd be the CEO, but with an actual chance to be prosecuted for mismanagement/law breaking/endangerment.

/Considering that corporations are merely text on a paper none will pass the test


I would settle for the ability to hold corporate officers civilly and criminally responsible for the actions of their companies.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:30 PM  

NickelP: Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.

Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?

No, they can't donate directly to candidates.  Its pretty helpful to have a superpac say 'hey we are going to run 100 mil in adds against your opponent'.  Its really farking helpful to have some group say 'you got a pen, you vote right on this you get a 100 mil check'


Still though, this seems like a smaller increment in the erosion of our democracy than the first one. The judges compared it to opening a floodgate after the first ruling opened a door, but I think they may have got that reversed.

This is more like opening a floodgate after the damn has already broken. Not helping, but we were already under water.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:39 PM  

qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:42 PM  

Carn: Might as well repeal all the voting rights amendments and go back to the system where only the rich, land-owning white males get to tell everyone else what to do.


All in good time...

All in good time.
 
2014-04-02 01:22:49 PM  
Why don't the just legalize bribery?
 
2014-04-02 01:22:58 PM  

DamnYankees: This is an argument that kind of makes sense, but it takes us a step back to "in what world is a panel of judges, as opposed to a legislature, capable of determining where the line is"? Aren't these people against judicial activism? Isn't the whole point of a legislature to determine these things?


We accept that we can donate to a candidate and we accept a top limit per candidate as a way of mitigating bribery.... the court decided that the cap limited the amount of people you could donate to and thus chilling of speech.  The limit on cumulative does not fit as a limit on bribery.
 
2014-04-02 01:23:11 PM  

DamnYankees: I take it you don't agree with this, so I won't even try to rebut it. It's a terrible argument.


It is however the argument used to justify a lot of legal rules, such as the obscenity exception.  Seriously, w8ith conservative judges its often a good argument to show where the framers contradicted themselves and then say "see, obviously X amendment or Y provision couldn't have encapsulated the case we are discussing now"

The best analogy i can think of is if you know someone who fervently declares that they will not eat meat, but see them eating fish, you can make one of two assumptions:

1) they are hypocrites
2) they dont consider fish to be meat
 
2014-04-02 01:23:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.


Wait. You skipped an argument here. All you established was that speech is more than just your voice, and that you can use physical objects as a vehicle for carrying that speech.

How does that get us to having a right to "expenditure of resources to do so"?
 
2014-04-02 01:24:09 PM  

R.A.Danny: Accepting direct bribes is still illegal. Using your money to speak on your behalf (which everyone already does) is not. If you have contributed to a campaign and are butthurt because someone else contributed more I really can't help you.


You win the disingenuous award. Congratulations.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:37 PM  

vonmatrices: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?

No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."

You haven't said if you agree or disagree, you are just taking a pessimistic view of the Government, which is understandable.


I agree that it is that way.  Whether I feel it should or should not be that way doesn't matter very much.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:39 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.

So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?

That's what the court is for. I'm just saying this is how the system was designed. It's not perfect by any stretch.


So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:48 PM  

sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: HotWingConspiracy: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think anyone is shocked. Why are you pretending people are shocked? Just to feel smug?

"Oh, our democracy is failing, our society is crumbling, an oligarchy is rising..."  etc etc

Because of something that has always been true.

The wealthy wouldn't have gone after these laws if they weren't working.

Sure.  And they wouldn't have succeeded in getting rid of the restrictions if money doesn't equal power.  So, which is the "natural" state of things?

We restrict their power, or they exert their power?

I think it's cyclical, but we shouldn't kid ourselves on who has the power.  It's just a matter of how much we try to restrict them (or, more accurately, how much they are willing to restrict themselves).

Sounds like libertarian nonsense to me. They can be brought to heel.

When?  Where?

I watched a show where a couple white guys when to friggen new Guinea to live with a tribe.

The tribe consisted of a male leader, a holy man, men, and women.  In that order.

This is the very basis of society.  Heck, even primates organize themselves into power hierarchies, where the guys on top get all the best stuff.


Power manifests in many different ways, and money is the most fickle of all.
 
2014-04-02 01:24:51 PM  

chapman: qorkfiend: Why would the Koch Bros., as individuals, would show up on a chart of unions, companies, and other similar organizations?

It's a list of all donors since 1989. I just so happens that the top donors are organizations and also predominantly donate to democrats.


For groups that are required to disclose donations. There's a reason the superPAC money is called "dark money"
 
2014-04-02 01:25:04 PM  

pjbreeze: Why don't the just legalize bribery?


It already is, isn't it?  A wealthy donor can at the very least get an audience with a congresscritter, but I can't.
 
2014-04-02 01:25:06 PM  

Saiga410: We accept that we can donate to a candidate and we accept a top limit per candidate as a way of mitigating bribery.... the court decided that the cap limited the amount of people you could donate to and thus chilling of speech.  The limit on cumulative does not fit as a limit on bribery.


I didn't say it was. It has a different purposes, which issue a separate issue.
 
2014-04-02 01:25:13 PM  

pjbreeze: Why don't the just legalize bribery?


Lobbying is legal in the US.

It is bribery in other places.
 
2014-04-02 01:25:51 PM  

DamnYankees: This is an argument that kind of makes sense, but it takes us a step back to "in what world is a panel of judges, as opposed to a legislature, capable of determining where the line is"? Aren't these people against judicial activism? Isn't the whole point of a legislature to determine these things?


Also this is an argument for NOT allowing campaign contribution caps.  The judicial minimalist argument is "it is too hard for judges to figure out the intricacies of what is too corrupting and what isn't, so we will rely on the constitutional prohibition and ban all limitations, except the ones that are clear bright lines.  The Judicial maximalists would argue "oh for the love of Pete, its not that hard" and then make up a 15 factor balancing test.

/note i am usually on the side of the maximalists, but i know what we (they) are doing is making a lot of common law.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:02 PM  
Enjoy it while you can, Republicans. When you die out, none of the youth will vote for you no matter how much money you throw at advertising. Your brand will be AOL, Netscape, Windows 95, and Geocites. No matter how much campaign spending you spend, no one born in the 2000s will vote for you. Except those who believe to the very end that abortion, homosexuality, and being born black is a sinful sin.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:30 PM  

sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?


I don't think its shock,  We know that's the case but we want a system where money and power have nothing to do with each other.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:44 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Power manifests in many different ways, and money is the most fickle of all.


Perhaps that is the salvation.

Once money has no value, it has no power.
 
2014-04-02 01:26:51 PM  

FlashHarry: republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. one man, one vote doesn't work if you're the one percent.


Yes, only the top 1% vote republican and George Soros, Hollywood Liberals and the unions don't spend any money on progressive campaigns and causes.

Whatever will poor progressives do in upcoming elections.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid= N0 0000019
 
2014-04-02 01:27:05 PM  

sendtodave: vonmatrices: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: vonmatrices: Almost all government employees do not take any kind of gifts or contributions as to avoid being viewed as corrupt.  So why not the candidates for elected office?

Government employees aren't rulers.

What the hell is a 'ruler'? What a vague and meaningless term in this context.
rul·er
ˈroolər/
noun
1.
a person exercising government or dominion.

So you're tapping out of this conversation?

No, just thought it's pretty evident I meant "the guys that make the rules."

Versus "the guys that have to follow the rules."

You haven't said if you agree or disagree, you are just taking a pessimistic view of the Government, which is understandable.

I agree that it is that way.  Whether I feel it should or should not be that way doesn't matter very much.


So, if things are simply the way they are and never will change, how do we progress?  Someone somewhere feels that something should be different and things do change in our world, for better or for worse.  Why not you or I or anyone else on this forum?
 
2014-04-02 01:27:12 PM  

Teiritzamna: Also this is an argument for NOT allowing campaign contribution caps.  The judicial minimalist argument is "it is too hard for judges to figure out the intricacies of what is too corrupting and what isn't, so we will rely on the constitutional prohibition and ban all limitations, except the ones that are clear bright lines.  The Judicial maximalists would argue "oh for the love of Pete, its not that hard" and then make up a 15 factor balancing test.


This is a fair point.
 
2014-04-02 01:27:16 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.


Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?
 
2014-04-02 01:27:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.


Agreed.

/I'm a Moderate Republican.
 
2014-04-02 01:27:37 PM  

Warlordtrooper: sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think its shock,  We know that's the case but we want a system where money and power have nothing to do with each other.


I want a unicorn.

It'd be so cool!  Too bad they don't exist.
 
2014-04-02 01:27:39 PM  
The FECKLESS crowd has massive butthurt in this thread. As a public service reminder, FECKLESS is an acronym:

Fark
Echo
Chamber of
Kooky
Liberals
Espousing
Stupid
Shiat.

/welcome
 
2014-04-02 01:27:56 PM  

RevMark: Is this the thread where all the Republican Farkers jerk each other off because their Party was behind a major judicial ruling, but because they are Republican they are too ignorant to realize that it was actually a bad thing?

The RNC: God, guns, wars against brown people and big ass pickup trucks... because we're greedy kochsuckers!


Leave the pickup trucks out of your ranting...what the hell did THEY do to you????.....
/must drive a Prius...
//Think I'll hit the mud bogs now...
 
2014-04-02 01:28:08 PM  

Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.

Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?

No, they can't donate directly to candidates.  Its pretty helpful to have a superpac say 'hey we are going to run 100 mil in adds against your opponent'.  Its really farking helpful to have some group say 'you got a pen, you vote right on this you get a 100 mil check'

Still though, this seems like a smaller increment in the erosion of our democracy than the first one. The judges compared it to opening a floodgate after the first ruling opened a door, but I think they may have got that reversed.

This is more like opening a floodgate after the damn has already broken. Not helping, but we were already under water.


maybe.  I really don't know.  Honestly this probably needs a few years of people like Rove who run campaigns and political parties for a living to figure out how best to exploit it to figure out what it really means.  I don't really see it as being a step in the right direction though.  It also seemed to lay the ground work for removing the individual cap.
 
2014-04-02 01:28:14 PM  

DamnYankees: Wait. You skipped an argument here. All you established was that speech is more than just your voice, and that you can use physical objects as a vehicle for carrying that speech.

How does that get us to having a right to "expenditure of resources to do so"?


Physical objects cost money.  Either you make them yourself from raw materials you grew yourself, which is still the expenditure of value (i.e. you could have sold that raw squid ink and paper pulp, and lets not discuss the labor value).  Or you buy them.
 
2014-04-02 01:28:31 PM  
Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.
 
2014-04-02 01:28:35 PM  
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ― Thomas Jefferson
 
2014-04-02 01:29:51 PM  
Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:04 PM  

FTDA: TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.

Agreed.

/I'm a Moderate Republican.


i60.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-02 01:30:38 PM  
Let's see, Hillary's Democratic successor takes office in 2025... I'll be 40. I think I'll be sending some money to the most progressive or possibly liberal candidate at that time, someone who can see that the chaos of the next 11 years will be deteriorating the country from the top down and will see to it to fix this shiat. At least, here's hoping.

/signed the Movetoamend.org petition
//Hillary will be on the side that could help for eight years and, although she'll be a good enough president, she probably won't do enough to stop all this
 
MFK
2014-04-02 01:30:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Teiritzamna: What is relevant is that Court has long held that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expressive conduct is part and parcel of that expressive conduct.

This is what's lost on everyone.


It's not lost on everyone. Everyone is just profoundly offended by the notion.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:55 PM  

qorkfiend: You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

In rhetoric?  No, there are certainly differences.  In practice?  Yes, they might as well be the same party.

qorkfiend: Upon what do you base this belief?


Gut feeling/consulted the coconuts, whichever one holds more credence with you.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:57 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.

Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".


The platforms of the two major parties may differ, but again--look at each individual's voting record.  Don't assume that just because the candidate you like is of a certain party, that they will vote in agreement with that party's platform.

Look at their actions, never mind their words.
 
2014-04-02 01:30:59 PM  

Friction8r: The FECKLESS crowd has massive butthurt in this thread. As a public service reminder, FECKLESS is an acronym:

Fark
Echo
Chamber of
Kooky
Liberals
Espousing
Stupid
Shiat.

/welcome


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-02 01:31:46 PM  

qorkfiend: You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?


People who have extremely oddball economic beliefs, especially about monetary policy, tend to think the GOP and the Dems are the same, since both parties generally subscribe to somewhat mainstream economics.
 
2014-04-02 01:31:52 PM  

Warlordtrooper: sendtodave: This thread moves fast.  I'll use big font.

There is no government system ever conceived where the rich don't have more power than everyone else. It's impossible, since money is power.  Why are we shocked, shocked that this is the case?

I don't think its shock,  We know that's the case but we want a system where money and power have nothing to do with each other.


Addendum:  who is "we?"

Who wants a system where money doesn't equal power?

Those with no money or power.  Obviously.

How will people with no money or power change the world?  Other than following someone with money and power, I mean?
 
2014-04-02 01:32:31 PM  

qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.

Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?


The only difference is which liberties each party is willing to take from us in order to stay in power. Some want to take our gun rights, our right to practice and teach our religion to our children, etc. Some want to tell us which plants we can grow, or who you can designate as your legal partner. They both want to devalue our money. They both want to keep us dependent on handouts, either corporate or personal. If you really believe one side or the other is really fighting the good fight, you need to pay more attention.
 
2014-04-02 01:32:36 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.


I notice that you provide neither a direct quote nor a link.  Care to amend?

John Roberts did not say that.  He did say that not all spending (on opinion ads) is corruption. Thus all people's spending because some might be corrupt is an abridgement. I see that you are total fark; thus you spent money on -- well, this!  You are giving opinions and the means to your ends involve spending.  Roberts is protecting YOU.
 
2014-04-02 01:32:45 PM  

taurusowner: Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.


Exactly!  I often say politics is like pro wrestling!
 
2014-04-02 01:33:04 PM  

Teiritzamna: DamnYankees: Wait. You skipped an argument here. All you established was that speech is more than just your voice, and that you can use physical objects as a vehicle for carrying that speech.

How does that get us to having a right to "expenditure of resources to do so"?

Physical objects cost money.  Either you make them yourself from raw materials you grew yourself, which is still the expenditure of value (i.e. you could have sold that raw squid ink and paper pulp, and lets not discuss the labor value).  Or you buy them.


Ok. I'm still confused how this gets us to having the right to give money to candidates.

There's a fundamental difference between "express your view, and use whatever resources you have access to to do it" and "bankroll someone's election campaign". I don't see them as being in the same category of thing.
 
2014-04-02 01:33:14 PM  

taurusowner: Our government is the WWE. During a match, the different wrestlers spend a good while getting the crowd riled up, making speeches, trash talk, and getting them to hate their opponent. They get half the crowd to hate one guy and the other half to hate the other. The WWE spends millions of dollars renting arenas, putting out ads, and most importantly....paying both of the wrestlers. When the match is over and the crowds go home, those two "enemies" still collect a paycheck from the same people. And they move to the next town to start it all over. We are that crowd. We buy into the trash talk. We believe every word they say.


Exactly right.  And how many times has the WWE run an anti-authority bring down the current WWE power structure story line?  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say more than one.
 
2014-04-02 01:33:19 PM  

Road Rash: Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.


most people are tremendously influenced by advertising.  You may be right about Soro's, but that is because 2 billion is going to come from the other side too.  If one candidate spent 2 billion and the other spent 0 that would be a pretty notable difference in the end result.
 
2014-04-02 01:33:41 PM  
Well, it used to be that "speech" meant just that, actual spoken speech. That is, until the liberals got a hold of it and changed it to mean "any action that can be construed as having a political overtone".

So I find it amusingly ironic that liberals are complaining that the action of donating money to political candidates should be restricted.

I also find it amusing that people still believe that the candidate with the most campaign money to spend always wins, in spite of evidence that it has very little effect overall (linky).
 
2014-04-02 01:33:48 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Well this is the problem with texualism.  But lets try it anyway.

The First Amendment states in relevant part:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"

Hrm.  Well that's rather, short, isn't it?  So now we need to ask some further questions.  Primary of them is "What the heck is 'the freedom of speech'?" Does that mean only the freedom to make noises from your throat?  Well while it is possible, it is unlikely.  Given the war that the revolutionaries fought and the arguments made in the federalist papers, a better way to read "the freedom of speech" is "the freedom to express yourself to others."

"Ok.  Well i still dont see 'money' there!" you may decry.  And you would be right, as far as text goes.  However, the ability to express yourself doesn't really mean too much if it is limited only to the ability to do so with only your body.  Surely it must encompass writing, and distributing those writings, right?  Well if that is the case, you had to use physical objects from the real world to facilitate your expression.  It wouldn't be much of a protective right if the government could stop you from talking, but could easily stop you from printing things, or distributing those writings.

So now we have a construction of the first amendment wherein the government cannot restrict your ability to express yourself, which includes the expenditure of resources to do so.  And there you go.  For the first amendment to mean anything, it must include not only speaking out loud with your voice but also expending money to get your message out there.

the problem is when we then shorten that very complicated understanding to a phrase like "money is speech" which is so divorced of the above nuance that it seems a gross contradiction.


Except this is not about printing. It is not about broadcasting. It is about giving politicians unlimited amounts of money. So, not at all the same. And there is a compelling interest to prevent just such a thing for the preservation of a representative democracy and republic.
 
2014-04-02 01:34:18 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." ― Thomas Jefferson


That's a fake quote. Jefferson never said that. And even if he had, Jefferson had truly terrible ideas about the intersection of economics and government.
 
2014-04-02 01:34:20 PM  

DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.

So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?

That's what the court is for. I'm just saying this is how the system was designed. It's not perfect by any stretch.

So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.


... and the sooner we get the Democrats out of power, the better ... right?
 
2014-04-02 01:34:34 PM  

Road Rash: Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.


Never underestimate the gullibility of the public to mass marketing campaigns.  We are like 5 year olds seeing adds for cerial/branded toys.
 
2014-04-02 01:34:52 PM  
sendtodave:
How will people with no money or power change the world?  Other than following someone with money and power, I mean?

By voting.
 
2014-04-02 01:35:19 PM  
I would argue that an ignorant electorate is the actual problem here, not the amount of money spent.  We're still the ones voting these people into office.  We do it for various reasons: because of advertising, to prevent the 'other guy' from winning, or being genuinely fooled into thinking that the mainstream candidate represents us and our best interests.

In the last election, there were several candidates on the ballot who would never get into the national spotlight because of lack of funding, but I took an hour or two before voting to read up on each, and decide which one I would most like to represent me.

Leveling the playing field would be great, but so long as people aren't willing to put even this minimal effort into deciding who to vote for, it won't make a bit of difference.
 
2014-04-02 01:35:21 PM  
This plutocracy brought to you by Goerge W Bush and the GOP
 
2014-04-02 01:35:39 PM  
There is a perverse part of me that wishes the Supreme Court sided with Thomas' interpretation, just because of the alternative we have now with or without this ruling. In 2012 SuperPACs were responsible for over half a billion dollars in campaigning. There is no campaign cap for these groups, and they get the bonus that if they ever go too far in sliming their preferred candidate's opponent there is no "I am ______________ and I approve this message" disclaimer needed and your candidate can distance themselves. These groups can't coordinate, but the safeguards against doing it are so paper thin that it would be nigh-impossible to get caught if you knew the law. Sure the corruption involved in these gigantic campaign spending exercises wouldn't be improved by it, but it's not like there is the political will to put the toothpaste back in the tube as far as these groups are concerned. At least make it so the candidates have an equal footing with those groups going forward.
 
2014-04-02 01:36:15 PM  
The filthy rich are only allowed to cast just one vote. That's it. No matter how many bazillions you have in offshore accounts, it's just one vote. Period.

So long as that law still applies, they are allowed to live.

Once they start trying to pull some "one million dollars per vote" sh*t, out come the torches and guillotines.
 
2014-04-02 01:36:52 PM  

Saiga410: Road Rash: Regardless of how much money is spent in politics, money won't actually, literally buy votes unless the electorate decides to let their vote be bought. George Soros could spend 2 billion dollars over the next two years, and he probably will, but it won't mean a thing if people decide they don't want to vote what he stands for.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the public to mass marketing campaigns.  We are like 5 year olds seeing adds for cerial/branded toys.


not to mention that assertion rests on the idea that it is all D v R things.  There are plenty of issues both sides are happy to fark common people on for the rich donors.  There are also many rich donors that gives to both sides.  They don't give a shiat if a R or D wins, they just want whoever wins to look out for their issues.
 
2014-04-02 01:37:04 PM  

DeaH: So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.


As far as I recall, all nine justices in Buckley held that the expenditure of money was generally protected under the first amendment.  Whether the government could regulate that under the many tangled exceptions/tests of first amendment jurisprudence was the question.
 
2014-04-02 01:37:12 PM  

Teiritzamna: The First Amendment is a negative right - a restriction against government meddling in speech. Thus it could be (and has been) argued that the first amendment doesn't mandate any fairness with regard to the effectiveness of expression. We are not all made to talk as softly as the quietest man, nor dance as poorly as the most uncoordinated. Instead, the First Amendment is generally viewed to prevent only the government from farking with the game.


I understand your argument, and I understand what the court decided in Citizens.  But you and they missing the broader picture that has been carefully explained in decisions for the last century.  Courts have held for generations that limiting the funding of political activity is a compelling governmental interest for the preservation of the fundamental nature of republicanism.  This Court has radically expanded corporate rights and Buckley, and wholly disavowed the long-held finding that on its face, the application of money to politics threatens to distort the equality of governance.

You also need to extrapolate your argument to anonymous political speech. This leads to the the crux of why your and their arguments are constitutionally invalid.  Under the precedents laid down to today and Citizen's, they have effectively raised the bar so high for what they would consider a compelling governmental interest to regulate political spending, that disclosure requirements writ large, are doomed. If the government cannot regulate speech as you have explained and the court has decided, then it may not interfere with anonymous political speech either, for the same reasons cited.  It would be impossible to preserve the constitutional nature of government under such a system.  You are essentially arguing that preserving the money as speech protections awarded by this court are more important than preserving the character of the carefully structured government itself.  It's a silly argument that only a lawyer can make with a straight face, and one that was routinely rejected by courts across the land for the hundred years before this one.
 
2014-04-02 01:37:33 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]


That's how much was donated to each candidate, not how much was spent. Direct anti-candidate campaigning is the name of the game these days, and the Koch's run Americans For Prosperity and are the primary financial backer of the group. Here is what was spent in direct campaigning in 2012, which quickly brings up the number of Republican groups in the top brackets.
 
2014-04-02 01:38:51 PM  

DeaH: Except this is not about printing. It is not about broadcasting. It is about giving politicians unlimited amounts of money. So, not at all the same. And there is a compelling interest to prevent just such a thing for the preservation of a representative democracy and republic.


Which is why the individual caps remain in place, because the Court has already found (and no one but Thomas, who is unsane, is questioning) that precluding direct unlimited donations is a compelling government intrest.
 
2014-04-02 01:39:17 PM  

taurusowner: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.

Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on fiscal policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats on education policy are "so small that they are inconsequential"? You honestly believe the differences between Republicans and Democrats on social services are "so small that they are inconsequential"?

Upon what do you base this belief?

The only difference is which liberties each party is willing to take from us in order to stay in power. Some want to take our gun rights, our right to practice and teach our religion to our children, etc. Some want to tell us which plants we can grow, or who you can designate as your legal partner. They both want to devalue our money. They both want to keep us dependent on handouts, either corporate or personal. If you really believe one side or the other is really fighting the good fight, you need to pay more ...


Oh, FFS. What is it with you people and not reading what you're responding to?

I didn't say "one side is fighting the good fight". What I said was "there are differences between Republican and Democratic policies on many issues", which is quite obvious to anyone actually paying attention.
 
2014-04-02 01:39:30 PM  
UGH just Ugh.    one of the worst rulings ever.

One thing has been clear to me for a while the GOP has likely been doing all they can to make sure none of the conservative members of the SCOTUS  retires while Obama is in office so they do not lose their majority.

Now obviously i have no insights to any who might be considering retiring from the court but its clear the GOP would not want any more liberal judges on the bench.
 
2014-04-02 01:40:12 PM  

jcooli09: This plutocracy brought to you by Goerge W Bush Soros and the GOP union-funded Democrats


FTFY

/typo yours
 
2014-04-02 01:40:47 PM  
It is amazing that in the same week you have GOP Presidential candidates all traveling to Las Vegas to bow and kiss the ring of a mega-donor in a rather sickening display of groveling, the USSC can make this decision. Pretty insane.
 
2014-04-02 01:42:06 PM  
I can honestly say, I have never been happier to be living in Canada.  In the short time since I have been here, the US has completely gone off the goddamn rails.  At this point, I may yet renounce my citizenship, just so I'll never be associated with a plutocratic pseudo-theocracy based on the premise of anti-intellectualism and just generally being an asshole on the world stage.

God damn, I'm ashamed to call myself American any more.
 
2014-04-02 01:42:34 PM  

Miss Alexandra: qorkfiend: MattStafford: qorkfiend: While there are certain areas where the parties find themselves in broad agreement, to say that there are no differences between the two parties, especially when it comes to domestic policy, is simply incorrect. Fiscal and tax policy is an obvious one. So are the different approaches to social services. And education. And health care. And voting rights. And gay rights. And labor and worker's rights. And religion. And on, and on.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 317x159]

There may be differences, but the differences are essentially so small that they are inconsequential.  Sure, relatively speaking, Democrat's priorities may line up more with you than the Republican's priority, but don't think for a minute that means the Democrats have your back.

Actually, I didn't say "the Democrats have [my] back". What I did say, for those of us lacking in reading comprehension skills, was, "there are vast differences between Republicans and Democrats on many policy issues".

The platforms of the two major parties may differ, but again--look at each individual's voting record.  Don't assume that just because the candidate you like is of a certain party, that they will vote in agreement with that party's platform.

Look at their actions, never mind their words.


Right, I guess that's why you see Democrats lining up to vote for Paul Ryan's budget, because there's no differences between the parties when you get down to actual votes. It's probably why we saw lots of Republicans voting with the Democrats on health care and tax policy back when Democrats had the House, too. No differences whatsoever.
 
2014-04-02 01:43:39 PM  
s7e3a.scene7.com

Ha Ha!
 
2014-04-02 01:43:45 PM  

qorkfiend: Right, I guess that's why you see Democrats lining up to vote for Paul Ryan's budget, because there's no differences between the parties when you get down to actual votes. It's probably why we saw lots of Republicans voting with the Democrats on health care and tax policy back when Democrats had the House, too. No differences whatsoever.


I think the argument is the converse - that when the GOP gets power, they actually won't implement Ryan's budget. And there's some truth there, in that the GOP really doesn't give a shiat about being small government. They truly, truly don't.
 
2014-04-02 01:44:52 PM  
So when is FARK going to just consolidate the Business and the Politics tabs?
 
2014-04-02 01:45:07 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Citizens United


What's your take on the an arm of the government saying  when someone could broadcast their opinion and what the subject matter could contain?
 
2014-04-02 01:45:51 PM  

pjbreeze: Why don't the just legalize bribery?


That is a whole different game. What you are looking for is lobbying, not election contributions.
 
2014-04-02 01:48:00 PM  

DamnYankees: MattStafford: DamnYankees: Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?

How else would you suggest we handle it?  Everyone polling over X gets an equal share?  Everyone on the ballot gets an equal share?  If you set the bar too low, you will get lots of extreme fringe candidates getting money that shouldn't be.  If you set the bar too high, it just reinforces the status quo.  I'm open to suggestions, however, and just made that solution up about 10 minutes ago.

I would probably make a rule saying something like "if you're polling above X% within 12 months of the election, you get Y dollars, and then if you're polling above Z% within 4 months of the election, you get another Y dollars." Something like that.


Why use polling? Who's polls are you going to trust? Why not treat it like a petition? If someone gets say, 100k signatures, they are in with equal funding.
 
2014-04-02 01:48:26 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: I understand your argument, and I understand what the court decided in Citizens. But you and they missing the broader picture that has been carefully explained in decisions for the last century. Courts have held for generations that limiting the funding of political activity is a compelling governmental interest for the preservation of the fundamental nature of republicanism. This Court has radically expanded corporate rights and Buckley, and wholly disavowed the long-held finding that on its face, the application of money to politics threatens to distort the equality of governance.


Oh i'm not, as i agree with those positions generally.  As was pointed out above thread, i think Brennan's argument in Austin is about spot on.  I am however trying to explain the legal argument for the other side, because its much more complicated and nuanced than the general characterization of it i have seen here.  As to the equalitarian thrust of Buckley . . . i honestly am not entirely convinced, in part because the holding is such a shiatshow.  Thats what the court used it for for about 20 years as a limitation on the first amendment, but it is also the lynchpin of the modern expansion of it.

Karma Curmudgeon: You also need to extrapolate your argument to anonymous political speech. This leads to the the crux of why your and their arguments are constitutionally invalid. Under the precedents laid down to today and Citizen's, they have effectively raised the bar so high for what they would consider a compelling governmental interest to regulate political spending, that disclosure requirements writ large, are doomed. If the government cannot regulate speech as you have explained and the court has decided, then it may not interfere with anonymous political speech either, for the same reasons cited.


Dude i am so with you on anonymity.  If you haven't seen it in other threads, prohibitions on anonymity are the only way out from CU that i can think of that dont require a drastic reduction of speech rights generally.

Karma Curmudgeon: You are essentially arguing that preserving the money as speech protections awarded by this court are more important than preserving the character of the carefully structured government itself. It's a silly argument that only a lawyer can make with a straight face, and one that was routinely rejected by courts across the land for the hundred years before this one.


Actually what I am arguing is that the First Amendment has an inherent flaw that allows this sort of monkey business, as long as the Court holds the view that egalitarian principals are not enough to trump it.  The problem i have though is that egalitarian principles tend to, once established as a trump card to rights, swallow those rights whole.  See, e.g., the Fourth Amendment which is a whisper of what it was merely 50 years ago, in major part because the public good of stopping crimes was viewed as a generally sufficient check on many of its provisions.

So i am a liberal in a quandary on these cases.
 
2014-04-02 01:50:10 PM  

EatenTheSun: Why use polling? Who's polls are you going to trust? Why not treat it like a petition? If someone gets say, 100k signatures, they are in with equal funding.


Because it takes money to get 100K signatures.

The question of "who's polls" is a valid one. Need to chew on it.
 
2014-04-02 01:51:11 PM  

Nabb1: somedude210: ....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012

Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.


This ruling removes the cap you can donate to a political party, but leaves in the $2600 per candidate. So what you'll have is people donating gobs of money directly to the GOP/DNC, who will then turn around and make unlimited $2600 donations to all their candidates, and the "party" can run unlimited advertising for whichever candidate they want to support, easily skirting that pesky $2600 limit.

I love Ruth Ginsburg, and I support sharp old people, but she needs to take one for the team, so we're not completely shafted when Rand Paul gets elected.
 
2014-04-02 01:51:23 PM  

Teiritzamna: If you haven't seen it in other threads, prohibitions on anonymity are the only way out from CU that i can think of that dont require a drastic reduction of speech rights generally.


I don't see how this would do anything. Everyone who follows politics already know the names Koch and Adelson. Hasn't seemed to hurt them.
 
2014-04-02 01:51:31 PM  

grimlock1972: UGH just Ugh.    one of the worst rulings ever



um how about no....
 
2014-04-02 01:52:33 PM  

BunkyBrewman: sendtodave:
How will people with no money or power change the world?  Other than following someone with money and power, I mean?

By voting.


Voting for this rich powerful guy, or that rich powerful guy?
 
2014-04-02 01:52:59 PM  

EatenTheSun: Who's polls are you going to trust?


DamnYankees: The question of "who's polls" is a valid one. Need to chew on it.


Nate Silver would just control the purse strings - I thought we all understood that?
 
2014-04-02 01:53:28 PM  

sendtodave: Carn: Might as well repeal all the voting rights amendments and go back to the system where only the rich, land-owning white males get to tell everyone else what to do.

All in good time...

All in good time.


                              media.theweek.com
 
2014-04-02 01:53:47 PM  

DamnYankees: It is amazing that in the same week you have GOP Presidential candidates all traveling to Las Vegas to bow and kiss the ring of a mega-donor in a rather sickening display of groveling, the USSC can make this decision. Pretty insane.


To go a little off the beaten path, I always wonder what Jabba's wife thinks as he undresses to climb into bed at night?

unitedrepublic.org
 
2014-04-02 01:54:41 PM  

grimlock1972: UGH just Ugh.    one of the worst rulings ever.

One thing has been clear to me for a while the GOP has likely been doing all they can to make sure none of the conservative members of the SCOTUS  retires while Obama is in office so they do not lose their majority.

Now obviously i have no insights to any who might be considering retiring from the court but its clear the GOP would not want any more liberal judges on the bench.


Which is sad because, if they continue to go the "rule until you die/we get in power" theory, we're going to have 10 more years of this shiat before one of those conservatives keels over and dies, possibly during a ruling. And then Republicans will realize they still can't buy the White House (if they could, President Rmoney would be executive-ordering all kinds of anti-ACA stuff) and the Democratic president of that time will fill the bench with liberals/progressives. The short-term crippling of the country is being seen as a positive for the blind followers of derp, but the long-term solutions that being progressive and moderate can offer are far greater positives.

Good luck, Republicans. Can't wait to see what happens in 2016. Absolutely cannot farking wait.
 
2014-04-02 01:55:13 PM  

DamnYankees: Ok. I'm still confused how this gets us to having the right to give money to candidates.

There's a fundamental difference between "express your view, and use whatever resources you have access to to do it" and "bankroll someone's election campaign". I don't see them as being in the same category of thing.


Well this is laying the necessary predicate.  We now have the principle that expending money in the furtherance of an expressive act is part of that act.

Which is how we get to second order support of those expressive acts.  Bear with me.

Imagine that John Johnson is running for the job of city comptroller.  You want to help bankroll his campaign which will require quite a few buttons and lawn signs (expressive).  So you offer $50 to buy those buttons, signs and so forth.  Now your gift of money has two expressive purposes.  It funds the expressive actions of the campaign (buying buttons, signs, airtime, etc.) AND it is also expressive in and of itself - it is a symbol saying "i support John Johnson!"  By giving to the campaign you are making a statement - just as how donating to the ACLU or the KKK or "the Girls Scouts but never the Boy Scouts" is often a political statement.

Thus campaign contributions are hyper political expression, in that they fund other expressive acts and act as a sign of affiliation with a group (which is why i favor major disclosure requirements).
 
2014-04-02 01:55:38 PM  

Teiritzamna: <smart things>


Goddammit, I'm pissed right now. DONT MAKE ME LIKE YOU!!
 
2014-04-02 01:56:02 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: grimlock1972: UGH just Ugh.    one of the worst rulings ever


um how about no....


it threw away my pic.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-02 01:57:29 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't see how this would do anything. Everyone who follows politics already know the names Koch and Adelson. Hasn't seemed to hurt them.


Actually i think it does.  We on the left all know these names.  We all know that we hates anyone who is supported by these sperm turtles.  Thus the mere fact that they have donated to a candidate can act as a grass roots donation-spurring, vote-get-outing event.
 
2014-04-02 01:58:25 PM  
This is an issue the same as electronic voting machines. The same folks gnashing their teeth over this destroying America were crying about how electronic voting booths would mean rich Republicans connected to Diebold would win forever. That paranoid bedwetting lasted till 2006 when they took back the Congress.
 
2014-04-02 01:59:32 PM  

Stone Meadow: The only advice I can offer those cheering this decision is to be careful what you ask for, because sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to hold a nearly unassailable demographic majority, and then they will, as sure as the sun rises, use this decision to permanently bury the GOP. Karma's a biatch, baby.


Then they will take their majority as a mandate to go after guns, which will put the GOP right back in power. If Democrats really wanted an unassailable majority, they would stop shooting themselves in the foot.
 
2014-04-02 02:00:11 PM  

jcooli09: This plutocracy brought to you by Goerge W Bush and the GOP

Apparently you don't remember that both the Republicans and the Democrats each raised (and spent) about $1 billion dollars apiece in the 2012 election cycle. The Democrats actually raised about $40 million more than the Republicans.

// Citation here.
 
2014-04-02 02:00:30 PM  

Road Rash: jcooli09: This plutocracy brought to you by Goerge W Bush Soros and the GOP union-funded Democrats

FTFY

/typo yours


Was there any reasoning to that, or are you just spewing?
 
2014-04-02 02:00:35 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Goddammit, I'm pissed right now. DONT MAKE ME LIKE YOU!!


Hey now. I am a likable guy.  I come from the bluest state and moved to possibly the second bluest.  I like titties, but not in an offensive way.  A friendly, "Hey!  Titties!" kinda way.  What I am trying to say is that i like breasts.

However, i do hate bad arguments,* and feel a need to educate people against their will.  Its a major failing.

/*you however made good arguments.  Super good ones actually.
 
2014-04-02 02:02:20 PM  

Mrbogey: This is an issue the same as electronic voting machines. The same folks gnashing their teeth over this destroying America were crying about how electronic voting booths would mean rich Republicans connected to Diebold would win forever. That paranoid bedwetting lasted till 2006 when they took back the Congress.


A lot of folks still think that bullshiat Did influence a presidential election.
 
2014-04-02 02:03:17 PM  

Teiritzamna: DamnYankees: Ok. I'm still confused how this gets us to having the right to give money to candidates.

There's a fundamental difference between "express your view, and use whatever resources you have access to to do it" and "bankroll someone's election campaign". I don't see them as being in the same category of thing.

Well this is laying the necessary predicate.  We now have the principle that expending money in the furtherance of an expressive act is part of that act.

Which is how we get to second order support of those expressive acts.  Bear with me.

Imagine that John Johnson is running for the job of city comptroller.  You want to help bankroll his campaign which will require quite a few buttons and lawn signs (expressive).  So you offer $50 to buy those buttons, signs and so forth.  Now your gift of money has two expressive purposes.  It funds the expressive actions of the campaign (buying buttons, signs, airtime, etc.) AND it is also expressive in and of itself - it is a symbol saying "i support John Johnson!"  By giving to the campaign you are making a statement - just as how donating to the ACLU or the KKK or "the Girls Scouts but never the Boy Scouts" is often a political statement.

Thus campaign contributions are hyper political expression, in that they fund other expressive acts and act as a sign of affiliation with a group (which is why i favor major disclosure requirements).


So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.
 
2014-04-02 02:03:36 PM  
Isn't it funny how we are all about exporting democracy, but we disdain the idea of wealth equality?

Even though equality of wealth would have quite a direct impact on power imbalances.

Maybe because democracy doesn't make people more equal so much as it makes them easier to manage.
 
2014-04-02 02:03:44 PM  

Teiritzamna: We now have the principle that expending money in the furtherance of an expressive act is part of that act.


This is true, but lets also keep in mind there are limits to it. You can't go around handing heroin to children as a way of advocating laxer drug laws, for example. This is not an absolute right.

Teiritzamna: Now your gift of money has two expressive purposes.  It funds the expressive actions of the campaign (buying buttons, signs, airtime, etc.) AND it is also expressive in and of itself - it is a symbol saying "i support John Johnson!"


I don't think I buy the latter. If I hand money to a campaign and it sits in a drawer, that's not an expressive act.

Teiritzamna: Thus campaign contributions are hyper political expression, in that they fund other expressive acts and act as a sign of affiliation with a group (which is why i favor major disclosure requirements).


You just made a leap though. "Funding other expressive acts" is not a political expression; at least, you haven't established it as such. We actually know that in the real world this is expressly NOT true; think of the amount of people who fund both sides of a race simply so the eventual winner will know that you're in the donor group. Same thing for "signs of affiliation". That might be an act of expression, or it might not. When I get a Costco card, that's a sign of affiliation, but its not speech.

This is not political expression. It's commerce. It's paying for access.
 
2014-04-02 02:04:06 PM  

NickelP: Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: NickelP: Delta1212: Well shiat

/on reflection and further reading, this is less dire than I originally thought
//Still, well shiat

That is just because people haven't come up with creative ideas to exploit it yet.  Look forward to groups with common interests that expressly donate together.  1 dude donating the max won't make someone flip their vote.  When a group donates to a large number and their issues comes up, saying 'hey we have 10,000 donors that will either donate to you or your next opponent.  Why don't you sit the fark down and listen to what we'd like you to do for a second' goes a long long way.

Yes, but isn't that basically called a SuperPAC?

No, they can't donate directly to candidates.  Its pretty helpful to have a superpac say 'hey we are going to run 100 mil in adds against your opponent'.  Its really farking helpful to have some group say 'you got a pen, you vote right on this you get a 100 mil check'

Still though, this seems like a smaller increment in the erosion of our democracy than the first one. The judges compared it to opening a floodgate after the first ruling opened a door, but I think they may have got that reversed.

This is more like opening a floodgate after the damn has already broken. Not helping, but we were already under water.

maybe.  I really don't know.  Honestly this probably needs a few years of people like Rove who run campaigns and political parties for a living to figure out how best to exploit it to figure out what it really means.  I don't really see it as being a step in the right direction though.  It also seemed to lay the ground work for removing the individual cap.


That would seem to be the largest obvious issue, yeah.
 
2014-04-02 02:04:49 PM  

jaybeezey: FlashHarry: republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. one man, one vote doesn't work if you're the one percent.

Yes, only the top 1% vote republican and George Soros, Hollywood Liberals and the unions don't spend any money on progressive campaigns and causes.

Whatever will poor progressives do in upcoming elections.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid= N0 0000019


Ahh the "Two wrongs make a right" defense.  Well played.

Of course, liberals overwhelmingly want to curtail this behavior despite the fact that some among us are guilty of it.  See the difference?
 
2014-04-02 02:05:18 PM  
and the downfall of this great nation continues.
 
2014-04-02 02:06:00 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: and the downfall of this great nation continues.


When, precisely, was this nation great?
 
2014-04-02 02:06:44 PM  

umad: Stone Meadow: The only advice I can offer those cheering this decision is to be careful what you ask for, because sooner rather than later the Democrats are going to hold a nearly unassailable demographic majority, and then they will, as sure as the sun rises, use this decision to permanently bury the GOP. Karma's a biatch, baby.

Then they will take their majority as a mandate to go after guns, which will put the GOP right back in power. If Democrats really wanted an unassailable majority, they would stop shooting themselves in the foot.


Guns are a wedge issue/rallying cry for democrats the same way abortion and welfare are for republicans. They really don't give a shiat about them. You hear about proposed legislation coming from representatives of metropolitan areas, but blue dog and swing flyover states are too critical to democrats for holding power in the house and senate, so yeah, it's just lip service.
 
2014-04-02 02:07:36 PM  

sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.

That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.
 
2014-04-02 02:07:51 PM  

Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.


Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.
 
2014-04-02 02:09:54 PM  

Pharmdawg: Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.


Nope, that happened.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:00 PM  

ReverendJynxed: So reword it to receiving limits. Put the limits on what the candidates receive instead of the folks donating. Let the overflow go to the public coffers


That is brilliant.  Seriously.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:34 PM  

Pharmdawg: Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

Please tell me you are making an exaggerated joke in poor taste.


No that happened earlier this week.
 
2014-04-02 02:11:58 PM  

sendtodave: badaboom: TV's Vinnie: Can we PLEASE start calling for the murder of the rich, pretty please?

I'm not kidding. Kill them before they kill you!

How do comments like this not get a Farker banninated?

Fark first amendment rights.


Vinnie, while normally treading on the line of serious/joking, made a good point. Kill them before they kill you. Survival of the fittest, except having money might not necessarily make you the most fit. I don't see a problem with it, and besides it's not like the 1% reads comments on Fark.
 
2014-04-02 02:12:27 PM  

Gunboat: ReverendJynxed: So reword it to receiving limits. Put the limits on what the candidates receive instead of the folks donating. Let the overflow go to the public coffers

That is brilliant.  Seriously.


This is the best solution I have heard
 
2014-04-02 02:12:33 PM  
It never fails to amuse me how farking stupid people are. There has never been a time in the entire history of the U.S.A. when the government wasn't run by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy. Unless you are fantastically wealthy you have no power or voice in this country, and the only time you even have the illusion of any kind of power is in election years when they pretend to listen to you dumbshiats.
No be a good little serf and bend over and grab your ankles because somebody has to pay for this stupid shiat and it isn't going to be the rich.
 
2014-04-02 02:13:15 PM  
Some Farmers are highly exasperated with this prudent decision.
 
2014-04-02 02:13:43 PM  
If you voted for Dubya give yourself a pat on the back!
 
2014-04-02 02:13:45 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: So when is FARK going to just consolidate the Business and the Politics tabs?


Wouldn't that make it too obvious for the average person? I mean we don't want to give them any ideals do we?
 
2014-04-02 02:14:27 PM  

sendtodave: cannotsuggestaname: and the downfall of this great nation continues.

When, precisely, was this nation great?


Oh come on, it's still great! There may be other countries I'd want to live in, but not for political or economic reasons. Just social and climate reasons.

This decision has implications for the political and economic conditions in this country, however, so I can sympathize with the "downfall" sentiment. But it doesn't automatically disqualify this country's overall greatness, IMO.
 
2014-04-02 02:15:22 PM  

Voiceofreason01: goddammit motherfarker


They pretty much just handed the entire country over to the Republican Party, didn't they?
 
2014-04-02 02:15:25 PM  
I keep reading the first amendment and don't see any dollar limits.

What constitution were the four pinheads who voted against this reading?
 
2014-04-02 02:15:27 PM  

Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.


I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.
 
2014-04-02 02:16:19 PM  
The conservative majority on SCOTUS is as activist as they come.
 
2014-04-02 02:16:23 PM  

Road Rash: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: DeaH: Contrabulous Flabtraption: I hate this ruling but it is technically correct (the best kind of correct.jpg). Our system isn't perfect and this is one of its baked-in flaws. But it IS what is right according to the Constitution.

Please point me to the exact place in the Constitution that says money is speech.

Show me where it says it is not.

So everything not mentioned is speech? Do you really want to go with that?

That's what the court is for. I'm just saying this is how the system was designed. It's not perfect by any stretch.

So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.

... and the sooner we get the Democrats out of power, the better ... right?


Who appointed the people who voted for this horror? Let's start with them.
 
2014-04-02 02:17:16 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: So, the court decided that money was speech, not the Constitution. If there had been one more Democrat-appointed justice on the bench, this decision would not be made. What is happening here is not a fault of the Constitution. It is the fault of a party. And removing that party from power is our only hope now for maintaining of a semblance of our nation.

As far as I recall, all nine justices in Buckley held that the expenditure of money was generally protected under the first amendment.  Whether the government could regulate that under the many tangled exceptions/tests of first amendment jurisprudence was the question.


How did the vote for Citizen's and today's abomination fall out?
 
2014-04-02 02:17:45 PM  

chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]



I think you're missing the point as to why this SCOTUS decision (and citizens united) are terrible.
 
2014-04-02 02:17:54 PM  

DamnYankees: This is true, but lets also keep in mind there are limits to it. You can't go around handing heroin to children as a way of advocating laxer drug laws, for example. This is not an absolute right.


Oh of course, but i fell into colloquial shorthand rather than having to haul out lawyerly phrases like: "The first amendment protects expression as long as (1) that expression does not fall afoul of one of the traditional exceptions to first amendment protection (obscenity, fraud, etc.); (2) the government has not established a reasonable time place and manner restriction alllowing that expression but curbing it for reasonable purposes (see, e.g., laws prohibiting loud music at 2 a.m.) or (3) the government hasn't shown a compelling interest and indicated that the restriction in question is the least restrictive means of securing that interest."  I can talk like that if you want, but i am begging you please dont make me (as i can now think of many exceptions to the exceptions i just listed and i dont want to go all fractal law here).

DamnYankees: I don't think I buy the latter. If I hand money to a campaign and it sits in a drawer, that's not an expressive act.


Wait, do you mean former (i.e. the giving of money to further expression)?  because if you do, it is not entirely relevant to the principle that the money isn't spent  (although as far as i know there are FEC rules on unspent contributions that address this very problem), it was intended to fund expression and thus a court will give it the benefit of the doubt.

DamnYankees: You just made a leap though. "Funding other expressive acts" is not a political expression; at least, you haven't established it as such. We actually know that in the real world this is expressly NOT true; think of the amount of people who fund both sides of a race simply so the eventual winner will know that you're in the donor group. Same thing for "signs of affiliation". That might be an act of expression, or it might not. When I get a Costco card, that's a sign of affiliation, but its not speech.

This is not political expression. It's commerce. It's paying for access.


The courts however have long disagreed with you on this point.  Donations as a sign of political affiliation are considered strongly protected.  I see your dissatisfaction with that, but i think that is just going to be one of those things where the general principle is unconvincing to you.

also thanks for thowing good game in this (and other) threads
 
2014-04-02 02:17:57 PM  

AbiNormal: It never fails to amuse me how farking stupid people are. There has never been a time in the entire history of the U.S.A. when the government wasn't run by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy. Unless you are fantastically wealthy you have no power or voice in this country, and the only time you even have the illusion of any kind of power is in election years when they pretend to listen to you dumbshiats.
No be a good little serf and bend over and grab your ankles because somebody has to pay for this stupid shiat and it isn't going to be the rich.


This.
 
2014-04-02 02:18:06 PM  
Republicans are back, baby!
 
2014-04-02 02:19:49 PM  

Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.


You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.
 
2014-04-02 02:20:02 PM  

Teiritzamna: DeaH: Except this is not about printing. It is not about broadcasting. It is about giving politicians unlimited amounts of money. So, not at all the same. And there is a compelling interest to prevent just such a thing for the preservation of a representative democracy and republic.

Which is why the individual caps remain in place, because the Court has already found (and no one but Thomas, who is unsane, is questioning) that precluding direct unlimited donations is a compelling government intrest.


So, how does that work in conjunction with today's decision? (I am not being snotty. I really do want to know.)
 
2014-04-02 02:20:51 PM  

cchris_39: I keep reading the first amendment and don't see any dollar limits.

What constitution were the four pinheads who voted against this reading?


I keep reading the second amendment and don't see any background check limits.

Playing this game is a slippery slope.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:05 PM  

ygdrazel: chapman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers

Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

[scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 514x480]

The list now covers 1989 through 2014.  It appears you didn't bother to read or comprehend the disclaimer and explanation from the Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets about their "heavy hitters" (Highlights and [] below are mine...) :  https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

"This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" - groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years. While contributions to outside groups like super PACs do not factor into an organization's designation as a "heavy hitter" (a listing of about 150 groups), those numbers are included for the roster below.

For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs - enough to put him at No. 2 on this list [ygd: in one year even though the list covers 25 years of contributions...]. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control. Neither Adelson nor Bloomberg - or the organizations they report as their employers - qualifies as a "heavy hitter" under our current definition. It's also important to note that we aren't including donations to politically active dark money groups, like Americans for Prosperity, a group linked to the Koch brothers, or the liberal group Patriot Majority - because these groups hide their donors; see a list of top donors that we've ...


to continue with chapman's deceit... the paragraph you lifted is directly ABOVE the list he provided. he has to either completely ignore "words" for pretty graphic, or he full and well saw it and just didn't care... used it anyway. lie by omission. and this really is the icing on the cake.

also, i wonder how all of them "patriot" fellers feel about this? they are always on the left for the spying, surveillance, and police state of things (though that's really a two party thing these days)... how do they feel about SCOTUS saying that big money is protected and blessed to control the top?
 
2014-04-02 02:21:19 PM  

DeaH: How did the vote for Citizen's and today's abomination fall out?


Well look to the dissents in each.  It is not necessary to find that the expenditure of money in the furtherance of expression is not protected to come to a different outcome (none of the dissenters agreed with your premise).  Instead, its the majority's exceedingly thin definition of corruption (vis-a-vis an argument that the government has a compelling interest in preventing it) that is at issue.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:29 PM  

Stone Meadow: DamnYankees: It is amazing that in the same week you have GOP Presidential candidates all traveling to Las Vegas to bow and kiss the ring of a mega-donor in a rather sickening display of groveling, the USSC can make this decision. Pretty insane.

To go a little off the beaten path, I always wonder what Jabba's wife thinks as he undresses to climb into bed at night?

[unitedrepublic.org image 360x260]


I'm guessing they have separate rooms.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:35 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: sendtodave: cannotsuggestaname: and the downfall of this great nation continues.

When, precisely, was this nation great?

Oh come on, it's still great! There may be other countries I'd want to live in, but not for political or economic reasons. Just social and climate reasons.

This decision has implications for the political and economic conditions in this country, however, so I can sympathize with the "downfall" sentiment. But it doesn't automatically disqualify this country's overall greatness, IMO.


Fair enough, we are a pretty kick ass third world country.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:37 PM  
This is a downward slope people, it's been obvious to everybody paying attention and hasn't had their head stuffed up their own ass watching reality television.
 
2014-04-02 02:21:40 PM  
well, as long as the Koch's don't find some way to live for eternity, maybe my great grandkids can make the country a better place
 
2014-04-02 02:22:41 PM  

R.A.Danny: FedExPope: FTA: "If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition."

Except flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades don't offend me at all. The rape and pillaging of our legislative system and democracy as a concept does offend me greatly, however. How can these things be equated?

They are both protected speech. This was already covered.


I'm arguing with the logic of saying "well, this stuff offends people and it's protected, so this other stuff should be too." I don't agree that the offensive nature of all of those things is exactly the same. I'm offended that people can spend ungodly amounts of money to influence elections not because I simply don't like what it is they are trying to say, but because it fundamentally undermines what the election is ostensibly meant to accomplish. Lumping flag burning and Nazi protests with "money = free speech" fails to understand how someone could be against those things for different reasons or be against one thing and not the other. Someone who is against unlimited campaign contributions is not trying to limit somebody's speech even though by definition you would say they were. There is an underlying concern that is the primary reason.
 
2014-04-02 02:22:48 PM  

Serious Black: Phinn: Serious Black: So how about this idea?

1) All contributions to a candidate's campaign must be made through a secret donation booth, i.e. the candidate cannot find out who gave them money or what amount of money they gave to them.
2) Informing a candidate that you gave a non-zero sum of money to their campaign is a felony.

I have an even better idea -- Let's make the federal government INCREDIBLY POWERFUL, all in the name of something that sounds good, like "Progressivism" or something, and work tirelessly to expand the scope of its powers and level of control, in particular over the economy, and then pretend that we're SHOCKED when people try to control that very same all-powerful government to make a buck.

You know, the last time we crushed the government's power was when Lochner v. New York was the law of the land. That wasn't a good time for anyone except the wealthy either.


That was the Progressive Era.  It sucked because of Progressivism, not Lochner.
 
2014-04-02 02:23:04 PM  

SlothB77: Republicans are back, baby!


I didn't get to read the decision yet. Did it put limits only on Democratic contributions or are they under the same rules? Your post implies that Republican contributors are now at an advantage?
 
2014-04-02 02:23:05 PM